Senate Report 107-38 - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2002

[Senate Report 107-38]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

Calendar No. 88
107th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 107-38

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL,
2002
_______

June 13, 2001.--Ordered to be printed

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

_______

Mrs. Murray, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following

R E P O R T

[To accompany S. 1178]

The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1178)
making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002,
and for other purposes, reports favorably thereon and
recommends that the bill do pass.

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

Amount of bill as reported to Senate.................... $17,885,293,000
Amount of budget estimates, 2002........................ 17,163,605,000
Fiscal year 2001 enacted................................ 18,494,505,000

C O N T E N T S

----------

SUMMARY OF MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS

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

TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary

Salaries and expenses............................................
Office of Civil Rights........................................... 10
Transportation planning, research, and development............... 10
Transportation Administrative Service Center..................... 11
Essential Air Service and Rural Airport Improvement Fund......... 12
Minority Business Resource Center Program........................ 14
Minority business outreach....................................... 15

U.S. Coast Guard

Operating expenses............................................... 18
Acquisition, construction, and improvements...................... 23
Environmental compliance and restoration......................... 31
Alteration of bridges............................................ 32
Retired pay...................................................... 33
Reserve training................................................. 33
Research, development, test, and evaluation...................... 33
Boat safety...................................................... 34

Federal Aviation Administration

Operations....................................................... 36
Facilities and equipment......................................... 41
Research, engineering, and development........................... 52
Grants-in-aid for airports....................................... 56
Small community air service development pilot program............ 63

Federal Highway Administration

Limitation on administrative expenses............................ 65
Federal-aid highways............................................. 67
Appalachian development highway system........................... 77
Limitation on Transportation Research............................ 78
Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System................ 81
Bureau of Transportation Statistics.............................. 82
Liquidation of Contract Authorization............................ 82

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Motor carrier safety: Limitation on administrative expense....... 83
National motor carrier safety program............................ 90

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Operations and research.......................................... 91
Highway traffic safety grants.................................... 96

Federal Railroad Administration

Safety and operations............................................ 99
Railroad research and development................................ 99
Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program........ 101
Next generation high-speed rail.................................. 101
Alaska railroad rehabilitation................................... 102
National Rail Development and Rehabilitation..................... 103
Capital Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
(Amtrak)....................................................... 103
Amtrak Reform Council........................................ 105
Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Project................... 106

Federal Transit Administration

Administrative expenses.......................................... 107
Formula grants................................................... 107
University transportation research............................... 110
Transit planning and research.................................... 110
Trust fund share of expenses..................................... 111
Capital investment grants........................................ 112
Job access and reverse commute grants............................ 149

St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

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

Research and Special Programs Administration

Research and special programs.................................... 151
Pipeline safety.................................................. 154
Emergency preparedness grants.................................... 155

Office of Inspector General

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

Surface Transportation Board

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

TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board:
Salaries and expenses.......................................... 158
National Transportation Safety Board: Salaries and expenses...... 158

TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

General provisions............................................... 160
Compliance with paragraph 7(c), rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules
of the
Senate......................................................... 163
Compliance with paragraph 12, rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of
the Senate..................................................... 163
Budgetary impact statement....................................... 170

Total Obligational Authority Provided--General Funds and Trust Funds

In addition to the appropriation of $17,885,293,000 in new
budget authority for fiscal year 2002, large amounts of
contract authority are provided by law, the obligation limits
for which are contained in the annual appropriations bill. The
principal items in this category are the trust funded programs
for Federal-aid highways, for mass transit, and for airport
development grants. For fiscal year 2002, estimated obligation
limitations total $41,222,799,000.

program, project, and activity

During fiscal year 2002, for the purposes of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law
99-177), as amended, with respect to appropriations contained
in the accompanying bill, the terms ``program, project, and
activity'' shall mean any item for which a dollar amount is
contained in appropriations acts (including joint resolutions
providing continuing appropriations) or accompanying reports of
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, or
accompanying conference reports and joint explanatory
statements of the committee of conference. This definition
shall apply to all programs for which new budget (obligational)
authority is provided, as well as to discretionary grants and
discretionary grant allocations made through either bill or
report language. In addition, the percentage reductions made
pursuant to a sequestration order to funds appropriated for
facilities and equipment, Federal Aviation Administration, and
for acquisition, construction, and improvements, Coast Guard,
shall be applied equally to each budget item that is listed
under said accounts in the budget justifications submitted to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations as modified
by subsequent appropriations acts and accompanying committee
reports, conference reports, or joint explanatory statements of
the committee of conference.

transportation equity act for the 21st century

The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, the
previous authorization for most Federal highway, transit, and
highway safety programs, expired on September 30, 1997. On May
22, 1998, the Congress passed a new authorization bill, the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century [TEA21], which
the President signed into law on June 9, 1998. Under this law,
most of the authorizations are contract authority; that is,
they are available for obligation without appropriation. The
role of the appropriations process with respect to contract
authority programs generally is to set obligation limitations
so that overall Federal spending stays within legislated
targets and to appropriate liquidating cash to cover the
outlays associated with obligations that have been made.
In March 2000, the Congress passed the Wendell H. Ford
Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, which
the President signed into law on April 5, 2000. The Committee
recommendation, within budgetary realities, attempts to honor
the priorities articulated in that legislation.

TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Salaries and Expenses

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................ $63,245,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 69,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 67,349,000

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

Section 3 of the Department of Transportation Act of
October 15, 1966 (Public Law 89-670) provides for establishment
of the Office of the Secretary of Transportation [OST]. The
Office of the Secretary is composed of the Secretary and the
Deputy Secretary immediate offices, the Office of the General
Counsel, and five assistant secretarial offices for
transportation policy, aviation and international affairs,
budget and programs, governmental affairs, and administration.
These secretarial offices have policy development and central
supervisory and coordinating functions related to the overall
planning and direction of the Department of Transportation,
including staff assistance and general management supervision
of the counterpart offices in the operating administrations of
the Department.
Unlike the Transportation Appropriations Bill for fiscal
year 2001 as passed by the Senate, the bill does not provide
separate appropriations for each of the offices within the
Office of the Secretary. However, the Committee expects the
Secretary to adhere to all the reprogramming requirements
governing his office. The Committee understands that the
Secretary is giving consideration to reorganizing his office.
The Committee will give careful consideration to such a
reprogramming request once it is submitted.
The Committee recommends a total of $67,349,000 for the
Office of the Secretary of Transportation including $60,000 for
reception and representation expenses.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendation in comparison to the budget estimate:

(In thousands of dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------- Committee
2001 2002 recommendation
enacted \1\ estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate Office of the 1,823 1,989 1,929
Secretary....................
Immediate Office of the Deputy 586 638 619
Secretary....................
Office of the Executive 1,178 1,241 1,204
Secretariat..................
Board of Contract Appeals..... 495 523 507
Office of Small and 1,189 1,251 1,213
Disadvantaged Business
Utilization..................
Office of Intelligence and 1,259 1,321 1,281
Security.....................
Office of the Chief 6,208 6,331 6,141
Information Officer..........
Office of the Assistant 2,145 2,282 2,214
Secretary for Governmental
Affairs......................
Office of the General Counsel. 9,950 13,355 14,075
Office of the Assistant 7,273 7,650 7,421
Secretary for Aviation and
International Affairs........
Office of the Assistant 3,004 3,153 3,058
Secretary for Transportation
Policy.......................
Office of the Assistant 7,346 7,728 7,728
Secretary for Budget and
Programs.....................
Office of the Assistant 18,978 20,262 18,236
Secretary for Administration.
Assistant to the Secretary and 1,670 1,776 1,723
Director of Public Affairs...
-----------------------------------------
Total................... 63,106 69,500 67,349
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects reduction of $139,139 (0.22 percent) pursuant to section
1403 of Public Law 106-554.

Immediate Office of the Secretary

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,929,000 for
fiscal year 2002 for the Immediate Office of the Secretary. The
Immediate Office of the Secretary has the primary
responsibility to provide overall planning, direction, and
control of departmental affairs.

Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary

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

Office of the General Counsel

The Committee recommends $14,075,000 for fiscal year 2002
for the Office of the General Counsel. The Office of the
General Counsel provides legal services to the Office of the
Secretary and coordinates and reviews the legal work in the
chief counsels' offices of the operating administrations. The
General Counsel is the chief legal officer of the Department of
Transportation and the final authority within the Department on
all legal questions. The Committee approves the agency's
request for an increase of $2,494,000 to be used for the
Department's ``Accessibility of All America'' initiative. These
resources will assist the Department in carrying out the
requirements in the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986 (ACAA) and
Section 707 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and
Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21). The Committee notes
that the DOT Inspector General's final report on airline
customer service (Report AV-2001-020) stated that complaints
regarding the treatment of disabled passengers in 2000
increased by 14.8 percent over 1999. The Committee expects the
Office of the General Counsel to move expeditiously in
implementing the disability and consumer related provisions in
AIR-21. The Committee further expects the Office of the General
Counsel to take immediate steps to implement the ACAA technical
assistance and information activities to include the following:
updating all ACAA-related publications and preparing a
quarterly newsletter; translating all ACAA publications into
Braille and creating large-print and audiotape versions;
establishing a 1-800 disability inquiry line staffed from 7
a.m. until 11 p.m. each day; creating a fax on-demand system
for publications; conducting reviews of major airline ACAA
training programs and providing relevant assistance; developing
a plain language technical assistance manual for ACAA
compliance. The Committee also includes $720,000 to establish a
toll-free number for the aviation consumer protection division.
This toll-free line will provide a centralized place for
consumers to go to file aviation complaints.

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy

For fiscal year 2002, the Committee provides $3,058,000 for
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy which is the
primary policy office of the Department and is responsible to
the Secretary for analysis, development, articulation, and
review of policies and plans for domestic transportation.

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International
Affairs

The Committee recommends $7,421,000 for the Assistant
Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs which is
responsible for administering the economic regulatory functions
regarding the airline industry. In addition, the Assistant
Secretary provides departmental leadership and coordination on
international transportation policy issues relating to
maritime, trade, technical assistance, and cooperation
programs. As overseer of airline economic regulation, the
Assistant Secretary is responsible for international aviation
programs, the essential air service program, airline fitness
and licensing, acquisitions, international route awards, and
special investigations such as airline delays and computer
reservations systems (CRS).

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs

The Committee recommends a total of $7,728,000 for the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs. The
Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs is the principal
staff advisor to the Secretary on the development, review,
presentation, and execution of the Department's budget resource
requirements, and on the evaluation and oversight of the
Department's programs. The primary responsibilities of this
office are to ensure the effective preparation and presentation
of sound and adequate budget estimates for the Department, to
ensure the consistency of the Department's budget execution
with the action and advice of the Congress and the Office of
Management and Budget, to evaluate the program proposals for
consistency with the Secretary's stated objectives, and to
advise the Secretary of program and legislative changes
necessary to improve program effectiveness.
The Committee directs the Office of the Secretary to report
monthly on the status of all outstanding report and reporting
requirements, including how delinquent congressionally mandated
or requested reports are and an estimated date for delivery.
The Committee expects that the Department will constitute this
responsibility in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Budget and Programs.

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs

The Committee recommends $2,214,000 for the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs which advises the
Secretary on all congressional and intergovernmental activities
and on all departmental legislative initiatives and other
relationships with Members of Congress. The Assistant Secretary
promotes effective communication with other Federal agencies
and regional Department officials, and with State and local
governments and national organizations for development of
departmental programs; and ensures that consumer preferences,
awareness, and needs are brought into the decision-making
process.

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration

The Committee recommends $18,236,000 for the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Administration which includes the
Office of the Secretary portion of rent. The Assistant
Secretary for Administration is the principal advisor to the
Secretary on departmental administrative management matters,
and is responsible for personnel and training, management
policy, employment ceiling control systems, automated systems
policy, administrative operations, real and personal property
management, acquisition management, and grants management.

Office of Public Affairs

The Committee recommends $1,723,000 for the Office of
Public Affairs which is the principal advisor to the Secretary
and other senior departmental officials and news media on
public affairs questions. The Office issues news releases,
articles, fact sheets, briefing materials, publications, and
audiovisual materials. It also provides information to the
Secretary on opinions and reactions of the public and new media
on transportation programs and issues.

Executive Secretariat

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,204,000 of
the expenses of the Executive Secretariat. The Executive
Secretariat assists the Secretary and Deputy Secretary in
carrying out their management functions and responsibilities by
controlling and coordinating internal and external written
materials.

Board of Contract Appeals

The primary responsibility of the Board of Contract Appeals
is to provide an independent forum for the trial and
adjudication of all claims by, or against, a contractor
relating to a contract of any element of the Department, as
mandated by the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C. 601.
The Committee has provided $507,000 for the Board of Contract
Appeals Board.

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization

The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization
has primary responsibility for providing policy direction for
small and disadvantaged business participation in the
Department's procurement and grant programs, and effective
execution of the functions and duties under sections 8 and 15
of the Small Business Act, as amended. The Committee recommends
$1,213,000.

Office of Intelligence and Security

The Committee recommends $1,281,000 for the Office of
Intelligence and Security which coordinates security and
intelligence policies and strategies among the modes of
transportation and serves as liaison with other Government
intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

Office of the Chief Information Officer

The Committee recommends $6,141,000 for the Office of the
Chief Information Officer which serves as the principal adviser
to the Secretary on matters involving information resources and
information systems management.

Office of Intermodalism

The Committee recommends $1,222,000 for the Office of
Intermodalism to be funded within the Federal Highway
Administration's limitation on administrative expenses. The
Committee does not recommend funding for the Office of
Intermodalism in the Office of the Secretary accounts.

Office of Civil Rights

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................ $8,140,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 8,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 8,500,000

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

The Office of Civil Rights is responsible for advising the
Secretary on civil rights and equal employment opportunity
matters, formulating civil rights policies and procedures for
the operating administrations, investigating claims that small
businesses were denied certification or improperly certified as
disadvantaged business enterprises, and overseeing the
Department's conduct of its civil rights responsibilities and
making final determinations on civil rights complaints. In
addition, the Civil Rights Office is responsible for enforcing
laws and regulations which prohibit discrimination in federally
operated and federally assisted transportation programs. The
Committee has provided a funding level of $8,500,000 for the
Office of Civil Rights.

Transportation Planning, Research, and Development

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................ $11,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 5,193,000
Committee recommendation................................ 15,592,000

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

The Office of the Secretary performs those research
activities and studies which can more effectively or
appropriately be conducted at the departmental level. This
research effort supports the planning, research and development
activities, and systems development needed to assist the
Secretary in the formulation of national transportation
policies. The program is carried out primarily through
contracts with other Federal agencies, educational
institutions, nonprofit research organizations, and private
firms. The Committee recommends $15,592,000 for transportation
planning, research, and development, $4,592,000 more than the
fiscal year 2001 enacted level and $10,399,000 more than the
President's budget request. Within the funds provided, the
Committee includes $4,000,000 for the Northeast Advanced
Vehicle Consortium for the development of a zero emission,
hydrogen powered, ambient pressure, high efficiency fuel cell
bus. The Committee also includes $1,000,000 for WestStart's
development and demonstration of the Vehicular Flywheel Project
in the Pacific Northwest. In addition, the Committee includes
$200,000 for the design and analysis to establish a new
international ferry service from Blaine, Washington to White
Rock, British Columbia. Within the funds provided, the
Committee has also included $3,000,000 to enable the Secretary
to work with officials at Missoula International Airport in
Missoula, Montana on a runway relocation study. In addition,
the Committee has included $2,000,000 for capacity and safety
improvements at the Richmond International Airport in Richmond,
Virginia.

Transportation Administrative Service Center

Limitation, 2001........................................ ($126,887,000)
Budget estimate, 2002 \1\............................... (125,323,000)
Committee recommendation................................ (125,323,000)

\1\ Proposed without limitations. Includes DOT only.

The Transportation Administrative Service Center [TASC]
provides a business operation fund for DOT to provide a wide
range of administrative services to the Department and other
customers. TASC functions as an entrepreneurial and self-
sufficient entity and provides competitive quality services
responsive to customer needs. The TASC is governed by a Board
of Directors composed of customer agencies operating in a
competitive business-like environment. The TASC presents
proposed operating and financial plans to the Board at the
beginning of each fiscal year. Once the Board has approved
those plans the TASC provides products and services to its full
customer base. The Director of TASC provides quarterly
performance and financial reports to the Board, makes
recommendations for changes to the approved plans and is
responsible for the day-to-day management of the TASC. DOT
administrations must procure consolidated administrative
services from the TASC unless a financial analysis of the
services demonstrates that it is more cost beneficial to the
Department as a whole--not to an individual operating entity
alone--to change the nature of the service delivery (to
consolidate a service or to decentralize a service). TASC
services are being marketed to customers outside DOT to provide
greater economies of scale, thus reducing costs to individual
customers. TASC services include:
--Functions formerly in DOT's working capital fund [WCF];
--Office of the Secretary [OST] personnel, procurement and
information technology support operations;
--Systems development staff;
--Operations of the consolidated departmental dockets
facilities; and
--Certain departmental services and administrative
operations, such as human resources management
programs, transit fare subsidy payments, and employee
wellness including substance awareness and testing.
All of the services of the TASC will be financed through
customer reimbursements, to the extent possible, on a fee-for-
service basis.

Essential Air Service and Rural Airport Improvement Fund

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approriations Mandatory \2\ Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001............................................ \1\ $14,000,00 $36,000,000 $50,000,000
0
Budget estimate 2002............................................ \3\ 10,000,000 40,000,000 50,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................ .............. 50,000,000 50,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Transfer from FAA operations general fund.
\2\ From overflight fees.
\3\ From FAA Grants-in-aid for airports.

The Essential Air Service [EAS] and Rural Airport
Improvement Program provides funds directly to commuter/
regional airlines to provide air service to small communities
that otherwise would not receive air service and for rural
airport improvement as provided by the 1996 Federal Aviation
Reauthorization Act.
The Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 authorizes
user fees for flights that fly over, but do not land in, the
United States. The first $50,000,000 of each year's fees were
to go directly to carry out the Essential Air Service Program
and, to the extent not used for essential air service, to
improve rural airport safety. If $50,000,000 in fees is not
available, the Committee has included bill language permitting
the FAA Administrator to transfer up to $10,000,000 from the
grants-in-aid for airports program in order to bring funding
for the EAS program to the $50,000,000 level.
The administration is proposing to tighten the eligibility
criteria for communities to receive EAS subsidies.
Specifically, no EAS subsidy would be provided to communities
in the United States (except Alaska) that are located fewer
than 100 highway miles from the nearest large or medium hub
airport, or fewer than 70 highway miles from the nearest small
hub airport, or fewer than 50 miles from the nearest airport
providing scheduled service with jet aircraft.
Many EAS points are located in remote rural areas: over 70
percent of the communities receiving subsidized service under
the program are more than 100 highway miles from the nearest
small, medium, or large hub airport. Thirty more communities
are located in Alaska, where, in all but two cases, year-round
road access does not exist, and in many instances does not
exist at all. Without air service, such communities would be
further isolated from the Nation's economic centers. The
funding provided is adequate to maintain existing levels of
service in Alaska.
Moreover, businesses are typically interested in locating
in areas that have convenient access to scheduled air service.
Loss of service would seriously hamper small communities'
ability to attract new business or even to retain those they
now have, resulting in further strain on local economies and
loss of jobs.
The following table reflects the points currently receiving
service and the annual rates as of April 1, 2001 in the
continental United States and Hawaii based on the President's
new eligibility criteria.

EAS SUBSIDY RATES AS OF APRIL 1, 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average daily
Estimated enplanements at Total
mileage to EAS point (year Annual subsidy Subsidy per passengers
States/communities nearest hub ending rates (April passenger (year ending
(small, medium, September 30, 1, 2001) September 30,
or large) \1\ 2000) 2000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARIZONA:
Kingman.................. 101 7.6 $542,353 $114.69 4,729
Page..................... 280 13.4 1,251,977 149.54 8,372
Prescott................. 102 22.9 542,353 37.81 14,343
Show Low................. 168 12.7 410,080 51.60 7,947
ARKANSAS:
El Dorado/Camden......... 108 4.9 825,569 271.66 3,039
Harrison................. 77 7.1 1,125,591 255.00 4,414
CALIFORNIA:
Crescent City............ 234 37.4 314,865 13.43 23,443
Merced................... 114 15.0 1,022,712 109.07 9,377
COLORADO:
Alamosa.................. 162 15.2 925,045 97.42 9,495
Cortez................... 258 28.0 403,311 23.02 17,519
HAWAII: Kalaupapa............ ( \2\ ) 6.8 272,807 64.48 4,231
ILLINOIS: Marion/Herrin...... 126 28.8 794,031 44.05 18,027
IOWA:
Burlington............... 163 37.3 600,000 25.70 23,345
Ottumwa.................. 85 2.6 380,039 233.73 1,626
KANSAS:
Dodge City............... 149 16.5 760,384 73.68 10,320
Garden City.............. 201 29.8 829,665 44.52 18,634
Great Bend............... 120 10.2 168,347 26.39 6,379
Hays..................... 180 23.7 907,791 61.14 14,848
Liberal/Guymon........... 141 12.1 625,831 82.43 7,592
MAINE:
Bar Harbor............... 157 42.4 634,145 23.88 26,556
Presque Isle............. 276 83.6 1,082,408 20.69 52,321
Rockland................. 80 23.9 634,145 42.33 14,982
MICHIGAN:
Ironwood/Ashland......... 218 6.7 544,269 128.94 4,221
Iron Mountain/Kingsford.. 101 29.8 473,599 25.42 18,634
Manistee................. 110 3.8 361,808 153.18 2,362
MISSOURI:
Cape Girardeau........... 123 24.1 $430,925 $28.51 15,117
Fort Leonard Wood........ 130 23.6 573,725 38.87 14,761
Kirksville............... 137 3.4 732,363 342.55 2,138
MONTANA:
Glasgow.................. 763 6.4 707,462 177.40 3,988
Glendive................. 624 3.5 707,462 319.97 2,211
Havre.................... 674 3.8 707,462 298.51 2,370
Lewistown................ 558 3.2 707,462 357.85 1,977
Miles City............... 529 4.4 707,462 256.05 2,763
Sidney................... 653 8.6 707,462 131.33 5,387
Wolf Point............... 698 5.4 707,462 208.26 3,397
NEBRASKA:
Alliance................. 256 4.4 785,175 282.23 2,782
Chadron.................. 311 6.2 785,175 202.47 3,878
Kearney.................. 181 31.9 839,487 42.10 19,941
McCook................... 271 7.7 1,325,289 275.07 4,818
Norfolk.................. 109 6.1 531,735 139.97 3,799
North Platte............. 277 25.6 106,006 6.61 16,035
NEVADA: Ely.................. 237 8.3 1,087,340 208.98 5,203
NEW MEXICO:
Clovis................... 103 12.3 1,126,523 146.38 7,696
Gallup................... 143 4.5 691,080 245.50 2,815
Silver City/Hurley/Deming 133 10.5 938,297 143.14 6,555
NEW YORK:
Massena.................. 159 8.7 371,835 68.38 5,438
Ogdensburg............... 123 7.4 371,835 80.68 4,609
Saranac Lake............. 141 13.6 631,353 74.42 8,484
NORTH DAKOTA:
Devils Lake.............. 405 8.2 613,389 119.90 5,116
Dickinson................ 490 12.2 590,153 77.39 7,626
Jamestown................ 332 8.3 613,389 117.96 5,200
OKLAHOMA: Ponca City......... 81 11.5 972,122 135.43 7,178
SOUTH DAKOTA: Huron.......... 121 10.3 $394,585 $61.44 6,422
TEXAS: Brownwood............. 145 6.7 865,886 206.80 4,187
UTAH:
Cedar City............... 178 28.3 679,450 38.35 17,718
Moab..................... 240 5.6 971,444 277.87 3,496
Vernal................... 174 11.4 1,102,967 154.63 7,133
VERMONT: Rutland............. 90 12.7 634,145 79.83 7,944
WASHINGTON: Ephrata/Moses 101 33.0 514,311 24.93 20,630
Lake........................
WEST VIRGINIA:
Beckley.................. 181 9.7 857,530 140.88 6,087
Princeton/Bluefield...... 145 8.0 857,530 171.71 4,994
WYOMING:
Laramie.................. 144 36.7 297,633 12.94 23,003
Rock Springs............. 184 29.7 465,023 25.04 18,573
Worland.................. 398 8.9 353,345 63.76 5,542
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Hub designations are recalculated annually and published by the FAA in the Airport Activity Statistics. The
above distances are based on the 1999 Airport Activity Statistics, which is based on CY 1999 passenger data.
\2\ There is no FAA-designated small, medium or large hub on the island of Molokai.

Minority Business Resource Center Program

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................ $1,900,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 900,000
Committee recommendation................................ 900,000

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

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization
[OSDBU]/Minority Business Resource Center [MBRC].--The OSDBU/
MBRC provides assistance in obtaining short-term working
capital and bonding for disadvantaged, minority, and women-
owned businesses [DBE/MBE/WBE's]. In fiscal year 2001, the
short-term lending program was converted from a direct loan
program to a guaranteed loan program. In fiscal year 2002, the
program will continue to focus on providing working capital to
DBE/MBE/WBE's for transportation-related projects in order to
strengthen their competitive and productive capabilities.
Since fiscal year 1993, the loan program has been a
separate line item appropriation, which segregated such
activities in response to changes made by the Federal Credit
Reform Act of 1990. The limitation on guaranteed loans under
the Minority Business Resource Center is at the
administration's requested level of $18,367,000.
Of the funds appropriated, $500,000 covers the subsidy
costs for loans not to exceed $18,367,000; and, $400,000 is for
administrative expenses to carry out the Guaranteed Loan
Program. The subsidy costs in fiscal year 2002 are $1,000,000
less than fiscal year 2001 due to the revised OMB credit
subsidy rate.

Minority Business Outreach

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................ $3,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 3,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,000,000

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

This appropriation provides contractual support to assist
minority business firms, entrepreneurs, and venture groups in
securing contracts and subcontracts arising out of projects
that involve Federal spending. It also provides support to
historically black and Hispanic colleges. Separate funding is
requested by the administration since this program provides
grants and contract assistance that serves DOT-wide goals and
not just OST purposes.

General Provisions

Rebates, refunds, and incentive payments.--The Department
receives funds from various Government programs at different
time intervals (that is, weekly, monthly, quarterly). For
example, under the General Services Administration's Travel
Management Center [TMC] Program, rebate checks received from
the travel contractor are distributed monthly to each element
of the Department in proportion to net domestic airline sales
arranged by the contractor. Past expenditures have to be
analyzed to determine the proper sources to refund which can be
a time-consuming process. The staff time and cost associated
with the precise accounting for each such refund is
prohibitive. To alleviate the need to specifically identify the
source for each repayment the Committee has included language
(sec. 329), as requested, that allows a fair and sensible
allocation of the rebates and miscellaneous and other funds.

Other

Reductions and supplementals in fiscal year 2001
appropriations.--In fiscal year 2001, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, Public Law 106-554 rescinded 0.22 percent
of discretionary budget authority and obligation limitations
provided for fiscal year 2001. In the Senate Committee report,
each account head shows the amount appropriated in Public Law
106-346 before the various reductions were made. The table
below depicts the amount of funds appropriated for each of the
accounts in Public Law 106-346, and the reductions and changes
thereto.

CHANGES IN FISCAL YEAR 2001 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION APPROPRIATIONS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Laws
106-346, 106-
554, 106-259 Public Law 106- Net
and 106-113 554 Sec. 1403 appropriation
Account appropriations 0.22 percent and obligation
and obligation cut limitation
limitation

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Secretary:
Salaries and expenses....................................... 63,245 -139 63,106
Transportation planning, research, and development.......... 11,000 -24 10,976
Minority Business Resources Center.......................... 1,900 -4 1,896
Minority business outreach.................................. 3,000 -7 2,993
Office of Civil Rights...................................... 8,140 -18 8,122
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................. 87,285 -192 87,093
===============================================
U.S. Coast Guard:
Operating Expenses.......................................... 3,192,000 -7,022 3,184,978
Acquisition, construction, and improvements................. 415,000 -913 414,087
Environmental compliance and restoration.................... 16,700 -37 16,663
Alteration of bridges....................................... 15,500 -34 15,466
Retired pay................................................. 778,000 .............. 778,000
Reserve training............................................ 80,375 -177 80,198
Research, development, test, and evaluation................. 21,320 -47 21,273
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................. 4,518,895 -8,230 4,510,665
===============================================
Federal Aviation Administration:
Operations \1\.............................................. 6,544,235 -14,397 6,529,838
Facilities and equipment.................................... 2,656,765 -5,845 2,650,920
Research, engineering, and development...................... 187,000 -411 186,589
Grants-in-aid for airports (obligation limitation).......... 3,200,000 -7,040 3,192,960
Grants-in-aid for airports (rescission of contracts -579,000 .............. -579,000
authority).................................................
Grants-in-aid for airports (TF appropriation)............... 2,500 -6 2,495
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................. 12,011,500 -27,699 11,983,801
===============================================
Federal Highway Administration:
Limitation on administrative expenses....................... [295,119] [-649] [294,470]
Federal-aid highways (obligation limitation)................ 29,661,806 -65,256 29,596,550
Emergency relief............................................ 720,000 -1,584 718,416
Exempt obligations.......................................... 1,068,926 .............. 1,068,926
Appalachian Development Highway System...................... 254,963 -561 254,402
Miscellaneous appropriations (GF)........................... 606,000 -1,333 604,667
Miscellaneous highway projects (TF)......................... 1,185,100 -2,607 1,182,493
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................. 33,496,795 -71,341 33,425,454
===============================================
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration:
National motor carrier safety program (obligation 177,000 -389 176,611
limitation)................................................
Motor carrier safety (limitation on administrative expenses) 92,194 -203 91,991
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................. 269,194 -592 268,602
===============================================
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
Operations and Research, General Fund....................... 116,876 -257 116,619
Operations and Research, Trust Fund (obligation limitation). 72,000 -158 71,842
National driver registration................................ 2,000 -4 1,996
Highway safety grants....................................... 213,000 -469 212,531
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................. 403,876 -889 402,987
===============================================
Federal Railroad Administration:
Safety and operations....................................... 101,717 -224 101,493
Research and development.................................... 25,325 -56 25,269
Next generation high speed rail............................. 25,100 -55 25,045
Alaska railroad rehabilitation.............................. 30,000 -44 29,956
Rhode Island rail development............................... 17,000 -37 16,963
Grants to Nat'l RR Passenger Corp........................... 521,476 -1,147 520,329
West Virginia rail development.............................. 15,000 -33 14,967
Pennsylvania Station redevelopment.......................... 20,000 -44 19,956
Amtrak reform council....................................... 750 -2 748
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................. 756,368 -1,642 754,726
===============================================
Federal Transit Administration:
Administrative expenses (approps and oblig limitation)...... 64,000 -141 63,859
Formula grants (approps and oblig limitation) \2\........... 3,294,000 -7,247 3,286,753
Univ. transportation research (approps and oblig limitation) 6,000 -13 5,987
Transit planning and research (approps and oblig limitation) 110,000 -242 109,758
Capital investment grants (approps and oblig limitation).... 2,696,000 -5,931 2,690,069
Capital investment grants (Trust Fund approps).............. 4,500 -10 4,490
Job access (approps and oblig limitation)................... 100,000 -220 99,780
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................. 6,274,500 -13,804 6,260,696
===============================================
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corp: Operations and mainte- 13,004 -29 12,975
nance..........................................................
===============================================
Research and Special Programs Administration:
Research and special programs............................... 36,373 -80 36,293
Pipeline safety............................................. 47,044 -103 46,941
Emergency preparedness grants............................... 14,300 -31 14,269
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................. 97,717 -215 97,502
===============================================
Bureau of Transportation Statistics \3\......................... [31,000] [-68] [30,932]
===============================================
Office of the Inspector General: Salaries and expenses \4\...... 49,450 -109 49,341
===============================================
Surface Transportation Board: Salaries and expenses............. 17,954 -38 17,916
===============================================
Total, Department of Transportation--Excluding Maritime 57,996,538 -124,779 57,871,759
Administration...........................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect BA transfer to Essential Air Service.
\2\ Reflects BA transfer of $50,000,000 from formula grants to capital discretionary; and $1,000,000 to OIG.
\3\ BTS funding included within Federal-aid highways.
\4\ Includes $1,000,000 BA transfer from FTA formula program.

U.S. COAST GUARD

Summary of Fiscal Year 2002 Program

The U.S. Coast Guard, as it is known today, was established
on January 28, 1915, through the merger of the Revenue Cutter
Service and the Lifesaving Service. In 1939, the U.S.
Lighthouse Service was transferred to the Coast Guard, followed
by the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation in 1942. The
Coast Guard has as its primary responsibilities the enforcement
of all applicable Federal laws on the high seas and waters
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; promotion of
safety of life and property at sea; assistance to navigation;
protection of the marine environment; and maintenance of a
state of readiness to function as a specialized service in the
Navy in time of war (14 U.S.C. 1, 2).
The Committee recommends a total program level of
$5,174,566,000 for the activities of the Coast Guard in fiscal
year 2002. This represents an increase of $591,671,000 (13
percent) above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level. The
following table summarizes the Committee's recommendations:

[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
Program 2001 enacted recommendations
\1\ 2002 estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating expenses \2\....................................... 3,192,000 3,382,838 3,427,588
Acquisition, construction, and improvements.................. 415,000 659,323 669,323
Environmental compliance and restoration..................... 16,700 16,927 16,927
Alteration of bridges........................................ 15,500 15,466 15,466
Retired pay (mandatory)...................................... 778,000 876,346 876,346
Reserve training............................................. 80,375 83,194 83,194
Research, development, test, and evaluation.................. 21,320 21,722 21,722
Boat safety (mandatory)...................................... 64,000 64,000 64,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 4,582,895 5,119,816 5,174,566
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reduction of $8,230,000 for the 0.22 percent government-wide rescission pursuant to Public Law 106-
554.
\2\ Includes funding for national security activities of the Coast Guard scored against budget function 050
(defense discretionary) as follows: fiscal year 2001 enacted amount includes $341,000,000 in defense
discretionary funding; fiscal year 2002 estimate includes $340,250,000 and fiscal year 2002 Committee
recommendation includes $695,000,000.

Operating Expenses

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Trust Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001 \1\ \2\.............................. $3,167,000,000 $25,000,000 $3,192,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002 \3\................................. 3,357,893,000 24,945,000 3,382,838,000
Committee recommendation \4\.............................. 3,402,588,000 25,000,000 3,427,588,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $341,000,000 for national security activities scored against budget function 050 (defense).
\2\ Excludes reduction of $6,967,000 for the 0.22 percent government-wide rescission pursuant to Public Law 106-
554.
\3\ Includes $340,250,000 for national security activities scored against budget function 050 (defense).
\4\ Includes $695,000,000 for national security activities including drug interdiction scored against budget
function 050 (defense).

The ``Operating expenses'' appropriation provides funds for
the operation and maintenance of multipurpose vessels,
aircraft, and shore units strategically located along the
coasts and inland waterways of the United States and in
selected areas overseas.
The program activities of this appropriation fall into the
following categories:
Search and rescue.--One of its earliest and most
traditional missions, the Coast Guard maintains a nationwide
system of boats, aircraft, cutters, and rescue coordination
centers on 24-hour alert.
Aids to navigation.--To help mariners determine their
location and avoid accidents, the Coast Guard maintains a
network of manned and unmanned aids to navigation along our
coasts and on our inland waterways, and operates radio stations
in the United States and abroad to serve the needs of the armed
services and marine and air commerce.
Marine safety.--The Coast Guard insures compliance with
Federal statutes and regulations designed to improve safety in
the merchant marine industry and operates a recreational
boating safety program.
Marine environmental protection.--The primary objectives of
this program are to minimize the dangers of marine pollution
and to assure the safety of U.S. ports and waterways.
Enforcement of laws and treaties.--The Coast Guard is the
principal maritime enforcement agency with regard to Federal
laws on the navigable waters of the United States and the high
seas, including fisheries, drug smuggling, illegal immigration,
and hijacking of vessels.
Ice operations.--In the Arctic and Antarctic, Coast Guard
icebreakers escort supply ships, support research activities
and Department of Defense operations, survey uncharted waters,
and collect scientific data. The Coast Guard also assists
commercial vessels through ice-covered waters.
Defense readiness.--During peacetime the Coast Guard
maintains an effective state of military preparedness to
operate as a service in the Navy in time of war or national
emergency at the direction of the President. As such the Coast
Guard has primary responsibility for the security of ports,
waterways, and navigable waters up to 200 miles offshore.

committee recommendation

The Committee recommendation for Coast Guard operating
expenses is $3,427,588,000, including $25,000,000 from the oil
spill liability trust fund and $695,000,000 from function 050
for the Coast Guard's defense-related activities including drug
interdiction. This is $44,750,000 above the budget request and
$235,588,000 (7.4 percent) more than the fiscal year 2001
enacted level.
Specific adjustments to the budget estimate are listed
below:

Change to
Item budget estimate

Search and rescue program readiness..................... +$8,000,000
Pay and benefits shortfalls............................. +36,750,000

Service reductions.--The President's budget proposes a
number of reductions in Coast Guard activities, including the
decommissioning and retiring of aging surface and aviation
assets, closure of air facilities, and reductions in some
marine safety activities. In his June 13, 2001 testimony before
this Committee, the Commandant of the Coast Guard stated that
``we need to break the downward spiral of spending ever
increasing amounts of money on older assets.'' The Committee
agrees with this assessment and, therefore, has provided
substantial funding for the Integrated Deepwater Systems
program in order to equip the Coast Guard with modern and
efficient assets.
Pay and benefits shortfalls.--The Committee has included
$36,750,000 to fund the additional costs of pay and benefits,
including military compensation, housing and subsistence
allowances, and health care, resulting from passage of the
Fiscal Year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act and other
Department of Defense policies.
C-130 programmed depot maintenance.--During the past
several fiscal years, the Coast Guard has diverted funds from
the aircraft maintenance account to other operating expenses
and then used funding shortages in aircraft maintenance as
justification for supplemental appropriations. This pattern has
been especially detrimental to the programmed depot maintenance
of the long range maritime patrol aircraft. Due to the
diversion of funds, the average interval in which C-130
aircraft undergo depot maintenance has increased from 48 months
to as long as 59 months. In addition, the Coast Guard recently
entered into a contract, that was issued on a sole-source basis
through a military interdepartmental purchase request, in which
the depot maintenance on the initial aircraft is estimated to
cost nearly five times as much. The Committee is concerned
about the Coast Guard's management of the funds provided for
aircraft maintenance as well as the sole-source basis of the
new contract. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Coast
Guard not to reprogram or divert funds from the aircraft
maintenance account. The Committee further directs the Coast
Guard to procure depot maintenance through full and open
competitive bid process.
AMSEA.--The Committee recommends $350,000 to be available
only to continue this marine safety training program that
trains fishermen and children in cold water safety techniques.
Marine Fire and Safety Association.--The Committee remains
supportive of efforts by the Marine Fire and Safety Association
(MFSA) to provide specialized firefighting training and
maintain an oil spill response contingency plan for the
Columbia River. The Committee encourages the Secretary to
provide funding for MFSA consistent with the authorization and
directs the Secretary to provide $255,000 to continue efforts
by the nonprofit organization comprised of numerous fire
departments on both sides of the Columbia River. The funding
will be utilized to provide specialized communications,
firefighting training and equipment, and to implement the oil
spill response contingency plan for the Columbia River.

SEARCH AND RESCUE PROGRAM READINESS

In fiscal year 2000 the Coast Guard failed to meet its
safety goal of saving at least 85 percent of all mariners in
distress--only 82.7 percent were saved, which is the lowest
result the Coast Guard has seen since 1993. The Committee is
deeply concerned by this unmet safety goal and the serious
staffing, training, and equipment shortfalls at the Coast
Guard's Search and Rescue stations. In his June 13, 2001
testimony before the Committee, the Department of
Transportation's Inspector General stated that a ``21 percent
decline in the number of experienced station personnel, an
aging small boat fleet that is failing Coast Guard readiness
inspections, and a 225 percent increase in mishaps involving
Coast Guard small boats are indicative of a program with
significant problems.'' The Inspector General also stated that
``readiness levels at Coast Guard SAR stations have been
deteriorating for more than 20 years''.
Coast Guard data shows that today, 90 percent of the Coast
Guard's 188 SAR stations operate with staffing levels so low
that boat crews must work an average of 84 hours of duty weekly
to maintain station readiness. This exceeds the Coast Guard's
own 68-hour work week standard. In his Regional Strategic
Assessment dated May 2001, the Coast Guard's Pacific Area
Commander stated that, in the Thirteenth Coast Guard District,
``we don't have enough personnel to safely man the watch or
perform full multi-mission responsibilities . . . District 13
needs an additional 250 billets to staff our 10 surf stations
and our other 4 stations . . . units are never fully manned
with qualified personnel . . . the status quo is unsafe,
inequitable, reduces readiness and is not sustainable.''
In addition to staffing shortages, SAR stations are
experiencing critical shortfalls in the number of experienced
personnel. As the chart below shows, since January 1996, the
number of senior level Coast Guard personnel (E-4 through E-9)
at SAR stations has decreased by 21 percent while the number of
inexperienced Coast Guard personnel (E-1 through E-3) has
increased by 194 percent.

Given these serious staffing and training shortfalls, it is
not surprising to see an increase in the number of accidents
involving Coast Guard rescue boats. Coast Guard data shows
that, in fiscal year 2000, there were 130 rescue boat
accidents, which represents a 225 percent increase over the 40
accidents that occurred during fiscal year 1998. The Coast
Guard found that over half of these accidents were caused by
navigational and operational errors or poor judgement, as shown
in the following chart.

During fiscal year 2000, 84 percent of the rescue boat
fleet inspected by the Coast Guard was found ``not ready for
sea''. This evaluation essentially means that Coast Guard
inspectors identified mechanical or structural deficiencies
that render the rescue boats not fully capable of performing
SAR missions. The following table shows the breakdown of Coast
Guard rescue boats found ``not ready for sea'' based on the
Coast Guard's fiscal year 1999 boat-specific data.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage
of boats
Average age of found
Boat type boat (years) ``Not
Ready For
Sea''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
47-Foot Motor Lifeboat...................... 0 to 4 90
44-Foot Motor Lifeboat...................... 28 100
41-Foot Motor Lifeboat...................... 18 to 28 99
------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition to standard motor lifeboats and utility boats,
SAR stations maintain non-standard rescue boats, including
rigid-hull inflatable boats, that comprise 53 percent of the
boats operated by SAR station boat crews and execute over 30
percent of SAR missions. Coast Guard data shows that, during
the past 3 years, over 50 Coast Guard members either fell
overboard or were ejected from rigid-hull inflatable boats. As
recently as March 2001, two Coast Guard members from Station
Niagara lost their lives when their rigid-hull inflatable boat
capsized and ejected its four-member crew into Lake Ontario.
Despite their potential hazards, these non-standard rescue
boats are not subject to formal readiness inspections. In
addition, boat coxswains may not have adequate training on how
to safely operate these boats. In July 2000, in response to a
rise in accidents involving these boats, the Coast Guard
conducted an internal study on non-standard rescue boat
operations. To date, the Coast Guard has made little progress
in implementing the majority of the study's recommendations.
The Committee is further disturbed to hear reports that
small boat station personnel may not have adequate or enough
personal safety equipment, including survival suits and
equipment, to protect themselves fully while performing these
dangerous SAR missions.
The Committee has included $8,000,000 above the fiscal year
2002 budget estimate for the Coast Guard to address the serious
staffing, training, and equipment problems in its SAR program.
These funds are in addition to the $5,541,000 in the fiscal
year 2002 budget request for SAR system enhancements.
Therefore, the Committee is recommending a total of $13,541,000
for SAR program enhancements for fiscal year 2002. As part of
this initiative, the Committee authorizes up to a total of 450
new positions, including 194 positions that were requested in
the fiscal year 2002 budget estimate.
The Committee directs the Commandant to develop and submit
a strategic plan for improving SAR program readiness to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 3 months
after the date of the enactment of this bill. The Committee
expects that the Coast Guard's strategic plan will address, at
a minimum:
Increasing the staffing levels at SAR stations in order to
meet the Coast Guard's 68-hour work week standard, including
increasing the staffing at Coast Guard surf stations to
maintain the Coast Guard's two-boat safety standard (two
``Bravo zero'' ready-to-go boat crews);
Increasing the staffing levels at SAR command centers to
allow all watchstanders to stand 12-hour vice 24-hour ``live''
watches;
Increasing the training and experience level of SAR station
personnel through targeted retention efforts, revised personnel
policies, and expanded training programs; and
Modernizing and improving the quantity and quality of
personal safety equipment, including survival suits and
equipment, for all personnel assigned to SAR and surf stations.
The Committtee has included bill language that directs that
the $13,541,000 in funds provided for fiscal year 2002 shall be
used only for improving staffing, training and experience
levels, and personal safety equipment in the SAR program. The
bill also directs the Department of Transportation Inspector
General to audit and certify to the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations that the funding provided is being used to
supplement rather than supplant the Coast Guard's level of
effort in this area in fiscal year 2001.

Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements

This appropriation provides for the major acquisition,
construction, and improvement of vessels, aircraft, shore
units, and aids to navigation operated and maintained by the
Coast Guard. Currently, the Coast Guard has in operation
approximately 250 cutters, ranging in size from 65-foot tugs to
399-foot polar icebreakers, more than 2,000 boats, and an
inventory of more than 200 helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft.
The Coast Guard also operates approximately 600 stations,
support and supply centers, communications facilities, and
other shore units. The Coast Guard maintains over 48,000
navigational aids--buoys, fixed aids, lighthouses, and radio
navigational stations.

committee recommendation

The recommended bill provides $669,323,000 for acquisition,
construction, and improvements, including $20,000,000 from the
oil spill liability trust fund. This represents a significant
increase of $254,323,000 (61 percent) above last year's enacted
level and $10,000,000 more than the budget request.
The following table summarizes the Committee's programmatic
recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2001 Fiscal year 2002 Committee
enacted \1\ estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessels.................................................... $156,450,000 $79,390,000 $79,640,000
Integrated Deepwater Systems Program....................... 42,300,000 338,000,000 325,200,000
Aircraft................................................... 37,650,000 500,000 12,500,000
Other equipment............................................ 60,113,000 95,471,000 97,921,000
Shore facilities and aids to navigation.................... 63,336,000 79,262,000 88,862,000
Personnel and related support.............................. 55,151,000 66,700,000 65,200,000
----------------------------------------------------
Total................................................ 415,000,000 659,323,000 669,323,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reduction of $913,000 for the 0.22 percent government-wide rescission pursuant to Public Law 106-
554.

The following table compares the fiscal year 2001 enacted
level, the fiscal year 2002 estimate, and the recommended level
by program, project, and activity.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Program name -------------------------------- Committee
2001 enacted 2002 estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessels:
Survey and design--cutters and boats........................ $500,000 $500,000 $500,000
Seagoing buoy tender (WLB) replacement...................... 118,000,000 70,000,000 70,000,000
Polar icebreaker--USCGC Healy............................... 1,000,000 .............. ..............
Configuration management.................................... 3,600,000 .............. ..............
Surface search radar replacement project.................... 1,150,000 .............. ..............
Polar class icebreaker reliability improvement program...... 4,500,000 8,890,000 4,490,000
87-Foot patrol boat (WPB) replacement....................... 22,000,000 .............. ..............
Alex Haley conversion project--phase II..................... 3,200,000 .............. ..............
Over-the-horizon cutter boats............................... 1,500,000 .............. ..............
Coast Guard patrol craft (WPC) conversion project........... 1,000,000 .............. ..............
85-Foot fast patrol craft................................... .............. .............. 4,650,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal Vessels.......................................... 156,450,000 79,390,000 79,640,000
===============================================
Integrated Deepwater Systems program............................ 42,300,000 338,000,000 325,200,000
===============================================
Aircraft:
HH-65A helicopter mission computer replacement.............. 3,650,000 .............. ..............
HH-65 LTS-101 engine life cycle cost reduction.............. 7,000,000 .............. ..............
Aviation simulator modernization project.................... 3,000,000 .............. ..............
Coast Guard cutter Healy aviation support................... 24,000,000 .............. ..............
C-130J system provisioning/training support analyses........ .............. 500,000 500,000
Aviation parts and support.................................. .............. .............. 12,000,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal Aircraft......................................... 37,650,000 500,000 12,500,000
===============================================
Other Equipment:
Fleet logistics system...................................... 5,500,000 .............. ..............
Ports and waterways safety system (PAWSS)................... 6,100,000 17,600,000 14,400,000
Marine information for safety and law enforcement (MISLE)... 8,500,000 7,450,000 7,450,000
Aviation logistics management information system (ALMIS).... 1,100,000 .............. ..............
National distress and response system modernization......... 23,800,000 42,000,000 42,000,000
Personnel MIS/Joint uniform military pay system............. 2,000,000 .............. ..............
Local notice to mariners automation......................... 600,000 .............. ..............
Defense message system implementation....................... 2,471,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Commercial satellite communications......................... 5,459,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
Global maritime distress and safety system (GMDSS).......... 3,083,000 2,200,000 2,200,000
Search and rescue capabilities enhancement project.......... 1,500,000 1,320,000 1,320,000
Thirteenth district microwave modernization project......... .............. 800,000 800,000
Hawaii rainbow communications system modernization.......... .............. 3,100,000 3,100,000
High frequency recapitalization and modernization........... .............. 2,500,000 2,500,000
Readiness management system................................. .............. 1,675,000 1,675,000
DOD C41 interoperability.................................... .............. 1,530,000 1,530,000
Command center readiness/infrastructure recapitalization.... .............. 727,000 727,000
P-250 pump replacement...................................... .............. 2,046,000 2,046,000
Configuration management--phase II.......................... .............. 6,023,000 6,023,000
Self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) replacement....... .............. 1,000,000 1,000,000
Minor information technology projects....................... .............. 2,000,000 2,000,000
Maritime electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) sensors for .............. .............. 5,000,000
cutters and boats..........................................
Ice detecting radar--Cordova, AK............................ .............. .............. 650,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal Other Equipment.................................. 60,113,000 95,471,000 97,921,000
===============================================
Shore Facilities and Aids to Navigation:
Survey and design--shore projects........................... 7,000,000 8,000,000 7,000,000
Minor AC&I shore construction projects...................... 5,330,000 7,262,000 7,262,000
Housing..................................................... 10,000,000 11,000,000 11,000,000
Waterways aids to navigation projects....................... 4,706,000 8,000,000 6,000,000
Air Station Kodiak, AK--renovate hanger..................... 8,200,000 .............. ..............
Transportation improvements--Coast Guard Island, Alameda, 8,000,000 .............. ..............
CA.........................................................
Coast Guard MEC waterfront improvements--Portsmouth, VA..... 2,400,000 .............. ..............
Modernize Coast Guard facilities--phase 1--Cape May, NJ..... 5,800,000 .............. ..............
Rebuild Coast Guard Station, Port Huron, MI................. 1,300,000 3,100,000 3,100,000
Modernize Air Station Port Angeles hangar, Port Angeles, WA. 3,800,000 .............. ..............
Homeporting pier construction--Homer, AK.................... 5,800,000 .............. ..............
Helipad modernization--Craig, AK............................ 1,000,000 .............. ..............
Consolidate facilities--Elizabeth City, NC.................. .............. 6,300,000 6,300,000
Consolidate warehouse--Coast Guard Yard, MD................. .............. 12,600,000 12,600,000
Rebuild Group/MSO--Long Island Sound, NY.................... .............. 4,900,000 4,900,000
Construct new station--Brunswick, GA........................ .............. 3,600,000 3,600,000
Replace utilities, ISC building number 8--Boston, MA........ .............. 1,600,000 1,600,000
Construct engineering building--ISC Honolulu, HI............ .............. 7,200,000 7,200,000
Consolidate Kodiak aviation support--Kodiak, AK............. .............. 5,700,000 5,700,000
Rebuild ISC Seattle Pier 36--Phase I........................ .............. .............. 12,600,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal Shore Facilities and Aids to Navigation.......... 63,336,000 79,262,000 88,862,000
===============================================
Personnel and Related Support:
Direct personnel costs...................................... 54,151,000 65,700,000 64,500,000
Core acquisition costs...................................... 1,000,000 1,000,000 700,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal Personnel and Related Support.................... 55,151,000 66,700,000 65,200,000
===============================================
Total appropriation....................................... 415,000,000 659,323,000 669,323,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

vessels

85-Foot fast patrol craft.--The Committee recognizes that
the Coast Guard currently lacks multi-operational patrol craft
capable of operating at high speeds and achieving sustained
success against drug runners. The Committee recommendation
includes $4,650,000 to test and evaluate a currently-developed
85-foot fast patrol craft that is manufactured in the United
States and has a top speed of 40 knots. This appropriation is
for purchase and delivery of such vessel. The Committee expects
the Coast Guard to use funding made available in Operating
Expenses to operate and maintain such vessel.
Polar class icebreaker reliability program.--Due to budget
constraints, the Committee recommends $4,490,000, which is
$10,000 less than the fiscal year 2001 enacted level. The
Committee anticipates that this funding level will be
sufficient for this program.

INTEGRATED DEEPWATER SYSTEMS PROGRAM

The Committee has provided $325,200,000 for the Integrated
Deepwater Systems (IDS) program, which is $282,900,000 or 669
percent more than the fiscal year 2001 enacted level and
$12,800,000 less than the budget request.
The Integrated Deepwater Systems program represents the
largest and most costly procurement in the 35 year history of
the Department of Transportation. As such, the Committee is
greatly concerned that the program be executed in an efficient
and affordable manner. The Federal Aviation Administration's
delays in modernizing the Nation's air traffic control system
is attributable in part to the billions of dollars wasted as
part of that agency's failed Advanced Automation System (AAS)
procurement. Similarly, the Coast Guard's delay in modernizing
its deepwater assets, both ships and aircraft, is attributable
in part to the millions of dollars of cost overruns that were
encountered several years ago in the agency's effort to extend
the service life of just 12 cutters through the Fleet
Renovation and Modernization (FRAM) program. Neither the Coast
Guard nor the taxpayers that depend on it can afford another
failed modernization effort.
The Committee does not question the need to modernize the
Coast Guard's deepwater assets. The service regularly operates
both ships and aircraft well beyond their expected service
lives. But the heavy maintenance costs attributable to
operating these older assets are extraordinarily burdensome on
the Coast Guard's operating budget. They undermine the
service's ability to operate at maximum capacity and
efficiency. In his testimony before the Committee, the
Commandant of the Coast Guard stated that ``we need to break
the downward spiral of spending ever increasing amounts of
money on older assets.'' The Committee agrees with this
assessment and has concurred with the Commandant's request to
decommission several older aircraft and cutters. This action,
though painful, is necessary to free up the resources required
to run existing assets at a sustainable rate and allow the
Coast Guard to carry out all of its missions without the
constant drag of punishingly high maintenance costs. This
requested action by the Administration will also free up
resources to modernize the Coast Guard's aviation and surface
fleet.
Despite the widespread recognition of the need to modernize
these deepwater assets, the Committee remains deeply concerned
about the expected cost and complexity of the deepwater
procurement. As stated earlier, the Committee provided almost a
700 percent increase in overall funding for this initiative,
but the Committee still fell short of the President's budget
request by almost $13,000,000 due to budget constraints. For
fiscal year 2003 the cost of this program could grow to as much
as $500,000,000 and remain at that level for the next two
decades. At the same time, there are several other urgent
procurements that threaten to push the total cost of the Coast
Guard's annual acquisition budget to a level in excess of
$1,000,000,000 per year. This funding dynamic is made clear in
the chart below that was presented to the Committee in
testimony by the Department of Transportation's Inspector
General.

It is important to note in the context of this discussion
that the Administration has taken a new position regarding the
use of emergency appropriations to fund ongoing Government
activities. Excluding the Coast Guard's acquisition funding
that was provided in recent years as an emergency
appropriation, the average annual appropriation over the last
decade for Coast Guard acquisitions was $376,000,000. That
amount by itself will not cover the Coast Guard's requirements
just for the deepwater program in fiscal year 2003. The
Inspector General testified that the significant cost
associated with the deepwater program holds the potential to
``crowd out'' other critical acquisitions that will be
necessary for the Coast Guard to perform some of its most
important missions, including Search and Rescue. One such
procurement is the urgently needed modernization of the
National Distress and Response System (NDRS). The Committee is
concerned about potential escalating costs and the
affordability of the NDRS modernization program, which is
discussed later in this report.
In order to address these concerns, the Committee has
included bill language that prohibits the obligation of funds
for the deepwater system integration contract until the
Secretary or Deputy Secretary of Transportation and the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) jointly
certify in writing to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations that funding for the IDS program for fiscal
years 2003 through 2007, funding for the NDRS modernization
program to allow for full deployment of the system by 2006, and
funding for other essential Search and Rescue procurements are
fully funded in the Coast Guard's Capital Investment Plan and
within the OMB's budgetary projections for the Coast Guard for
those years.
The Committee remains concerned over the inherent risks of
the acquisition strategy that the Coast Guard is pursuing.
Reliance on a single contractor--over a planned period of 20
years--to develop, construct, and deliver a wide range of
ships, aircraft, equipment, and communications systems presents
a significant risk of cost overruns and schedule delays. In
addition, the Committee is concerned that the Coast Guard may
not have the management controls in place to control costs or
ensure contractor performance. In light of these concerns, the
Committee has included bill language that prohibits the
obligation of funding provided for the Deepwater program until
the Secretary or Deputy Secretary of Transportation and the
Director, Office of Management and Budget jointly approve a
contingency procurement strategy, developed by the Commandant,
for the recapitalization of Coast Guard deepwater assets.
Finally, the accompanying bill directs the Coast Guard to
identify in their fiscal year 2003 budget justification the
following sub-headings within the request for the Deepwater
procurement: systems integrator, ship construction, aircraft,
equipment, and communications and provides that specific
assets, quantity requested, and associated costs be identified
within each sub-heading.

AIRCRAFT

Aviation parts and support.--The Committee has included
$12,000,000 for aviation spare parts and support to improve the
readiness of the Coast Guard's aviation assets. This funding
shall be available for overall support of the Coast Guard's
aviation infrastructure at the discretion of the Commandant.

NATIONAL DISTRESS AND RESPONSE SYSTEM MODERNIZATION PROGRAM

The Committee recommends the full $42,000,000 requested for
the modernization of the National Distress and Response System
(NDRS), which is effectively the maritime 911 system for
mariners in distress. At present, according to the Department
of Transportation Inspector General, there are a total of 88
significant gaps ranging in size from 6 to more than 800 square
nautical miles in which mayday calls are simply not detected by
the Coast Guard's principle maritime distress radio system. The
tragic case of the Morning Dew, which resulted in the loss of
four lives, highlights the extreme urgency of modernizing the
system as soon as possible.
The Inspector General testified to the Committee that the
contractor bids for the modernization of the NDRS have been
submitted at levels several hundred million dollars over the
Coast Guard's current cost projection for this program. This
only increases the Committee's concern about the affordability
of the Coast Guard's overall acquisition program. The Committee
is also concerned that the schedule for modernizing the NDRS
may already have begun to slip. The Committee has received
communications from the Coast Guard's Pacific Area Commander
articulating his expectation that the modernized NDRS will be
fully deployed in fiscal year 2005, while the Commandant
testified separately to the Committee that he expects
deployment to be in fiscal year 2006. The Committee is further
concerned about statements by the Commandant that the NDRS
modernization program may be ``scalable''. This statement can
be taken to imply that the NDRS modernization can be deployed
on a slower schedule so that funds remain available for the
deepwater procurement. This approach will not be acceptable to
the Committee, which expects the NDRS modernization to be fully
deployed no later than fiscal year 2006.
In order to address these concerns, the Committee has
included bill language that prohibits the obligation of funds
for the deepwater system integration contract until the
Secretary or Deputy Secretary of Transportation and the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) jointly
certify in writing to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations that funding for the IDS program for fiscal
years 2003 through 2007, funding for the NDRS modernization
program to allow for full deployment of the system by fiscal
year 2006, and funding for other essential Search and Rescue
procurements are fully funded in the Coast Guard's Capital
Investment Plan and within the OMB's budgetary projections for
the Coast Guard for those years.
The Committee believes that the Secretary or Deputy
Secretary of Transportation and the OMB Director should be
attendant to the following milestones in assessing whether the
NDRS modernization will be fully deployed by fiscal year 2006:
Not later than December 31, 2002, the Coast Guard should
fill all voice communications and recording gaps in areas of
the U.S. marine coastline at high risk for vessel accidents or
fatalities;
Not later than fiscal year 2003, the Coast Guard should
have the capability to locate distressed vessels by identifying
the origin of the communications signal over 60 percent of the
U.S. marine coastline; and by fiscal year 2006, over 100
percent of the U.S. marine coastline;
Not later than fiscal year 2003, the Coast Guard should
have the capability of sending and receiving data among Coast
Guard and other Federal and State search and rescue assets;
Not later than fiscal year 2003, the Coast Guard should
ensure compatibility of the system with international
communications standards under the Convention for the Safety of
Life at Sea over 50 percent of the U.S. marine coastline; and
by fiscal year 2006, over 100 percent of the U.S. marine
coastline.
Boatracs communications and positions systems.--The
Committee understands that in 1998 the Coast Guard evaluated
and reported on the operational effectiveness of the Boatracs
communications and positioning system. The conclusions from
that evaluation and continued use of the Boatracs system in the
Eighth Coast Guard district clearly indicate the system
provides immediate and effective coverage of dead zones in the
existing command and control communications system. Further,
this off-the-shelf system has proven easy to use, secure, and
substantially less expensive than cellular telephone
alternatives. The Committee directs the Coast Guard to submit a
report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations not
later than August 31, 2001 on its strategy regarding the use of
this system. The report should explain why no effort has been
initiated to procure, or allow the procurement of, additional
units; install already purchased units; or facilitate the
integration of those current in-service units into current
command and control communications systems.

other equipment

Maritime electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) sensors for
cutters and boats.--The Committee recommendation includes
$5,000,000 for the Coast Guard to procure maritime handheld and
fixed mounted electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) sensors for the
Coast Guard's cutters and patrol boats. In its fiscal year 2002
Capital Investment Plan, the Coast Guard has identified the
procurement of these sensors as a capital investment that
supports its maritime safety and security goals. The addition
of these thermal imaging systems will enable Coast Guard
personnel to conduct maritime operations safely and effectively
at night and in adverse weather conditions.
Ice detecting radar--Cordova, Alaska.--The Committee
recommends $650,000 for the acquisition and installation of an
ice detecting radar to increase awareness of hazards to
maritime navigation and prevent oil spills in Prince William
Sound. The Committee directs the Coast Guard to coordinate with
the local community to procure and site this equipment
expeditiously.
Ports and waterways safety system (PAWSS).--The Committee
recommends $14,400,000, a reduction of $3,200,000 below the
budget estimate but $8,300,000 more than the fiscal year 2001
enacted level. The Committee anticipates that this funding
level will be sufficient to implement and upgrade vessel
traffic service systems in select ports. The Committee
encourages the Coast Guard to expand this maritime safety
initiative to include additional ports.

shore facilities and aids to navigation

Rebuild ISC Seattle Pier 36--Phase I.--The Committee
recommendation includes $12,600,000 for costs associated with
repairing and rebuilding the Coast Guard's Integrated Support
Center at Pier 36 in Seattle. The Committee understands that
discussions are underway that could result in the Coast Guard
moving its activities from Pier 36 to an alternative site
within the City of Seattle. As such, the funds provided may be
used either to repair and rebuild the existing facility or to
cover costs associated with a move to an alternative site,
pending the outcome of these discussions.
Waterways aids to navigation projects.--The Committee
recommends $6,000,000, a reduction of $2,000,000 below the
budget estimate, due to budget constraints. Within the funds
provided, the Committee directs $250,000 to be available only
for the construction and installation of two aids to navigation
on the Burlington, Vermont Breakwater to replace the existing
dated equipment.
Survey and design--shore projects.--The Committee
recommends $7,000,000, the same as the fiscal year 2001 enacted
level. The reduction of $1,000,000 is due to budget
constraints.

bill language

Capital investment plan.--The bill maintains the
requirement for the Coast Guard to submit a 5-year capital
investment plan with initial submission of the President's
budget request. This requirement was first established in
fiscal year 2001.
Disposal of real property.--The bill maintains the
provision enacted in fiscal year 2001 crediting to this
appropriation proceeds from the sale or lease of the Coast
Guard's surplus real property and providing that such receipts
are available for obligation only for the national distress and
response system modernization program.
Rescissions.--The bill rescinds a total of $8,700,000 of
Coast Guard acquisition, construction, and improvements
appropriations made available in Public Laws 105-277, 106-69,
and 106-346 as shown below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
Public Law No. Project title rescinded
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Law 105-277................ HH-65A Helo Kapton $1,526,000
Wiring.
Public Law 106-69................. HH-65A Helo Kapton 2,856,000
Wiring.
Public Law 106-69................. HU-25 Reengineering. 3,468,000
Public Law 106-346................ PC-170.............. 850,000
---------------
Total....................... .................... 8,700,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Compliance and Restoration

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................ $16,700,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 16,927,000
Committee recommendation................................ 16,927,000

\1\Excludes reduction of $37,000 for the 0.22 percent government-wide
rescission pursuant to Public Law 106-554.

The Environmental Compliance and Restoration account
provides funds to address environmental problems at former and
current Coast Guard units as required by applicable Federal,
State, and local environmental laws and regulations. Planned
expenditures for these funds include major upgrades to
petroleum and regulated-substance storage tanks, restoration of
contaminated ground water and soils, remediation efforts at
hazardous substance disposal sites, and initial site surveys
and actions necessary to bring Coast Guard shore facilities and
vessels into compliance with environmental laws and
regulations.
The recommended bill provides $16,927,000 for environmental
compliance and restoration. The recommendation is the same as
the budget request and $227,000 more than the fiscal year 2001
enacted level.

Alteration of Bridges

(highway trust fund)

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................ $15,500,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 15,466,000
Committee recommendation................................ 15,466,000

\1\/ Excludes reduction of $34,000 for the 0.22 percent government-wide
rescission pursuant to Public Law 106-554.

The ``Alteration of bridges'' appropriation provides funds
for the Coast Guard's share of the cost of altering or removing
bridges obstructive to navigation. Under the provisions of the
Truman-Hobbs Act of June 21, 1940, as amended (33 U.S.C. 511 et
seq.), the Coast Guard, as the Federal Government's agent, is
required to share with owners the cost of altering railroad and
publicly owned highway bridges which obstruct the free movement
of navigation on navigable waters of the United States in
accordance with the formula established in 33 U.S.C. 516.
Alteration of obstructive highway bridges is eligible for
funding from the Federal-Aid Highways program.
The Committee has provided an appropriation from the
highway trust fund of $15,466,000 for the alteration of
bridges, which is the same as the budget request.
The Committee recommendation is to be distributed as
follows:

Committee
recommendation

Fourteen Mile Bridge, Mobile, AL........................ $5,766,000
Florida Avenue Railroad/Highway Bridge, New Orleans, LA. 3,500,000
John F. Limehouse Bridge in Charleston, SC.............. 2,200,000
Chelsea Street Bridge, Boston, MA....................... 2,000,000
EJ&E Railroad Bridge, Morris, IL........................ 2,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 15,466,000

EJ&E Railroad Bridge, Morris, Illinois.--The Committee is
concerned about the alteration of the EJ&E railroad bridge near
Morris, Illinois. To date, the Committee has provided
$5,000,000 for this important bridge project in fiscal years
2000 and 2001. It is the Committee's understanding that design
and engineering work has begun and should be completed in
February 2002. In fiscal year 2002, the Committee provides
$2,000,000 for this bridge project and expects construction to
commence in fiscal year 2002.
Millennium Port selection.--In an effort to expand United
States trade with Latin America and South America, the State of
Louisiana has developed the Millennium Port Commission. Funds
were provided in fiscal years 2000 and 2001 for federal support
of this Commission's activities. The Committee encourages the
Millennium Port Commission to complete its analysis and release
its final site selection study, with recommendations for a
Millennium Port, by January 1, 2002.

Retired Pay

Appropriations, 2001 (mandatory)........................ $778,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002 (mandatory)....................... 876,346,000
Committee recommendation (mandatory).................... 876,346,000

The ``Retired pay'' appropriation provides for retired pay
of military personnel of the Coast Guard and Coast Guard
Reserve, members of the former Lighthouse Service, and for
annuities payable to beneficiaries of retired military
personnel under the retired serviceman's family protection plan
(10 U.S.C. 1431-1446) and survivor benefit plan (10 U.S.C.
1447-1455), payments for career status bonuses under the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, and
for payments for medical care of retired personnel and their
dependents under the Dependents Medical Care Act. The average
number of personnel on the retired rolls is estimated to be
34,311 in fiscal year 2002, as compared with an estimated
33,499 in fiscal year 2001 and 32,684 in fiscal year 2000. The
recommended bill provides $876,346,000, the same as the budget
estimate and $98,346,000 above the fiscal year 2001 enacted
level.

Reserve Training

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................ $80,375,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 83,194,000
Committee recommendation................................ 83,194,000

\1\/ Excludes reduction of $177,000 for the 0.22 percent government-wide
rescission pursuant Public Law 106-554.

Under the provisions of 14 U.S.C. 145, the Secretary of
Transportation is required to adequately support the
development and training of a Reserve force to ensure that the
Coast Guard will be sufficiently organized, manned, and
equipped to fully perform its wartime missions. The purpose of
the Reserve training program is to provide trained units and
qualified persons for active duty in the Coast Guard in time of
war or national emergency, or at such other times as the
national security requires. Coast Guard reservists must also
train for mobilization assignments that are unique to the Coast
Guard in times of war, such as port security operations
associated with the Coast Guard's Maritime Defense Zone [MDZ]
mission and include deployable port security units.
The recommended bill includes $83,194,000 for reserve
training. This is the same as the budget request and $2,819,000
(3.5 percent) more than last year's enacted level. The
Committee recommendation provides funds to fully train,
support, and sustain a Selected Reserve level of 8,000. The
Committee has included $25,800,000 as the limitation on
allowable reimbursements of the Coast Guard operating expenses
appropriation from the Coast Guard Reserve training
appropriation.

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

The Coast Guard's Research and Development Program seeks to
improve the tools and techniques with which Coast Guard carries
out its varied operational missions and to increase the
knowledge base upon which it depends to fulfill its regulatory
responsibilities.
The recommended bill provides a funding level of
$21,722,000 for research and development projects, which is
consistent with the budget request. Of this amount $3,492,000
is to be derived from the oil spill liability trust fund. This
recommendation is consistent with the budget request.
Columbia River Aquatic Nonindigenous Species Initiative
(CRANSI) Center.--The Committee is concerned about the threat
that invasive, nonindigenous plants and animals pose to United
States waterways and the economy. Within the funds provided,
the Committee provides $500,000 for the Columbia River Aquatic
Nonindigenous Species Initiative (CRANSI) Center at Portland
State University to support surveys of nonindigenous aquatic
species in the Columbia River.
Environmentally sound synthetic lubricants evaluation.--The
Committee directs the Coast Guard to evaluate Planet Green
hydraulic fluid and Eagle G-4 synthetic engine lubricant for
application on its ships. The Committee understands that less
environmentally disruptive lubricants and fluids may cost
slightly more initially, but is informed that lower life-cycle
costs, improved efficiency, and maintenance benefits may
justify the higher initial investment. The Coast Guard is
directed to evaluate the applicability of these environmentally
sound synthetic lubricants and the life cycle cost and
performance considerations of introducing this class of
products to the operation of Coast Guard vessels. The Committee
anticipates the results of this evaluation to be completed in
time for these products to be integrated into the fiscal year
2003 Coast Guard justification.
Demonstration and evaluation of engineered wood
composites.--The Committee is aware of research on engineered
wood composites sponsored by the U.S. Navy at the University of
Maine Advanced Engineered Wood Composites Center. Engineered
wood composites are designed to reduce the cost of maintenance
and extend the useful life of waterfront structures. Within the
funds provided, the Committee provides $1,000,000 to support
the demonstration and evaluation of engineered wood composites
at Coast Guard facilities.

Boat Safety

(aquatic resources trust fund)

Appropriations, 2001 (mandatory)........................ $64,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002 (mandatory)....................... 64,000,000
Committee recommendation (mandatory).................... 64,000,000

This account provides financial assistance for a
coordinated National Recreational Boating Safety Program for
the several States. Title 46, United States Code, section
13106, establishes a ``Boat safety'' account from which the
Secretary may allocate and distribute matching funds to assist
in the development, administration, and financing of qualifying
State programs. The ``Boat safety'' account consists of amounts
transferred from the highway trust fund which are derived from
the motorboat fuel tax (18.4 cents per gallon).
The Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century
provides $64,000,000 of mandatory funding from the ``Aquatic
Resources Trust fund'' annually for this program. Of this
amount, $59,000,000 is provided for grants to States and
$5,000,000 for Coast Guard administration. The President's
budget requests no discretionary appropriations for fiscal year
2002.

general provisions

Vessel traffic safety fairway, Santa Barbara/San
Francisco.--The bill retains a general provision (sec. 312)
that would prohibit funds to plan, finalize, or implement
regulations that would establish a vessel traffic safety
fairway less than 5 miles wide between the Santa Barbara
traffic separation scheme and the San Francisco traffic
separation scheme. On April 27, 1989, the Department published
a notice of proposed rulemaking that would narrow the
originally proposed 5-mile-wide fairway to two 1-mile-wide
fairways separated by a 2-mile-wide area where off-shore oil
rigs could be built if Lease Sale 119 goes forward. Under this
revised proposal, vessels would be routed in close proximity to
oil rigs because the 2-mile-wide non-fairway corridor could
contain drilling rigs at the edge of the fairways. The
Committee is concerned that this rule, if implemented, could
increase the threat of offshore oil accidents off the
California coast. Accordingly, the bill continues the language
prohibiting the implementation of this regulation.
Quarterly acquisition reports.--The bill retains a general
provision (sec. 341) requiring that the Coast Guard submit a
quarterly report regarding the status of major acquisition
programs.
Coast Guard Yard.--The Committee recognizes the Coast Guard
Yard at Curtis Bay, Maryland is a critical component of the
Coast Guard's core logistics capability that directly supports
fleet readiness. The Committee further recognizes that the Yard
has been a vital part of the Coast Guard's readiness
infrastructure for more than 100 years and believes that
sufficient industrial work should be assigned to the Yard to
maintain this capability. Therefore, the Committee directs the
Secretary of Transportation to submit a 5-year business plan
for the Coast Guard Yard to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations within 18 months after the date of the enactment
of this bill.
The bill includes a general provision (sec. 332) that
amends section 648 of title 14 of the U.S. Code. This bill
language affords the Coast Guard Yard and other Coast Guard
specialized facilities to qualify as components of the
Department of Defense for competition and workload assignment
purposes and to enter into public-private partnerships for the
performance of work.
The bill also includes a general provision (sec. 328)
requiring the Commandant of the Coast Guard to maintain an
onboard staffing level at the Coast Guard Yard of not less than
530 full time equivalent civilian employees.

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Summary of Fiscal Year 2002 Program

The Federal Aviation Administration traces its origins to
the Air Commerce Act of 1926, but more recently to the Federal
Aviation Act of 1958 which established the independent Federal
Aviation Agency from functions which had resided in the Airways
Modernization Board, the Civil Aeronautics Administration, and
parts of the Civil Aeronautics Board. FAA became an
administration of the Department of Transportation on April 1,
1967, pursuant to the Department of Transportation Act (October
15, 1966).
The total recommended program level for the FAA for fiscal
year 2002 amounts to $13,325,808,000, $38,027,000 more than the
President's budget request. The following table summarizes the
Committee's recommendations:

[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
Program 2001 enacted 2002 budget recommendation
\1\ estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations................................................... 6,544,235 6,886,000 6,916,000
General fund appropriation............................... \2\ 2,129,366 1,108,781 1,138,781
Trust fund appropriation................................. 4,414,869 5,777,219 5,777,219
Facilities and equipment..................................... 2,656,765 2,914,000 2,914,000
Research, engineering, and development....................... 187,000 187,781 195,808
Airport improvement program.................................. 3,200,500 3,300,000 3,300,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total available budget resources....................... 12,588,500 13,287,781 13,325,808
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes fiscal year 2001 rescissions pursuant to Public Law 106-554.
\2\ Does not reflect transfer of $14,000,000 to the Essential Air Service program.

Operations

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................ $6,544,235,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 6,886,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 6,916,000,000

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

FAA's ``Operations'' appropriation provides funds for the
operation, maintenance, communications, and logistic support of
the air traffic control and navigation systems and activities.
It also covers the administration and management of the
regulatory, commercial space, medical, engineering, and
development programs.
The bill includes $6,916,000,000 for the operations
activities of the Federal Aviation Administration from the
airport and airway trust fund. The balance of the operations
appropriation will come from the general fund.
As in past years, FAA is directed to report immediately to
the Committees on Appropriations in the event resources are
insufficient to operate a safe and effective air traffic
control system.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendation in comparison to the budget estimate:

[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 program 2002 budget Committee
level \1\ estimate recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air traffic services.................................. 5,160,833 5,447,421 5,447,421
Aviation regulation and certification................. 693,450 744,744 783,994
Civil aviation security............................... 138,995 150,154 150,154
Research and acquisitions............................. 189,570 196,674 196,674
Commercial space transportation....................... 11,974 14,706 14,456
Regional coordination................................. 99,128 90,893 90,893
Human resources....................................... 54,743 74,516 74,516
Financial services.................................... 48,337 50,684 50,684
Staff offices......................................... 104,807 116,208 116,208
Essential air service................................. 14,000 ( \2\ ) ( \3\ )
Account-wide adjustments.............................. ................. .................. -9,000
---------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................... 6,515,838 6,886,000 6,916,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect rescissions pursuant to Public Law 106-554.
\2\ Proposes that the Essential air service (EAS) payment be paid out of the Airport Improvement Program in
fiscal year 2002.
\3\ Proposes that up to $10,000,000 of funds provided for the Airport Improvement Program may be used for the
Essential Air Service (EAS) program.

Controller Staffing.--The President's budget requests
funding to hire 600 additional air traffic controllers. This
request is consistent with the labor agreement that the FAA
negotiated with the National Air Traffic Controllers
Association. These additional controllers will allow the FAA to
address increased traffic demand as well as assist in the
implementation of the agency's new choke point sectors. The
Committee approves the agency's request for 300 FTE's and 600
FTP's and includes $23,814,000 for these additional air traffic
controllers. The Committee expects the FAA to move
expeditiously in filling these important positions.
Washington Air Route Traffic Control Center.--The
northeastern corridor of the Nation's airspace is one of the
busiest air traffic areas in the country. As air traffic
continues to increase in the northeast, it is important that
the FAA keep air traffic controller staffing at an appropriate
level to manage the traffic. The controller workforce at the
Washington Air Route Traffic Control Center is reportedly below
the level that was determined in a staffing study that was
conducted by the FAA. The Committee expects the Administrator
to review the staffing levels at the Washington Air Route
Traffic Control Center while taking into consideration the
number of managers and staff that are eligible to retire. Once
the review is completed, the Committee further expects the
Administrator to take the appropriate steps to fill the
vacancies as soon as possible.
Airway Facility technician levels.--The Committee is
concerned over reports that there are Airway Facility
technician positions that are authorized but remain vacant. The
Committee is also concerned that the on-board strength of
technicians is at dangerously low levels. The Committee expects
the Administrator to review the technician staffing levels and
to aggressively recruit to fill any vacancies as soon as
possible.
Contract tower program.--The Committee continues to support
the contract tower program and the cost-sharing program as a
cost-effective way to enhance air traffic safety at smaller
airports. The Committee's recommendation includes $70,500,000
to fund the existing contract tower program, the remaining
eligible non-Federal towers not currently operated by the FAA,
and other non-towered airports eligible for the program. In
addition to these resources, $6,000,000 is provided for the
contract tower cost-sharing program. The Committee has been
informed that the St. Cloud, Minnesota Airport and the
Tuscaloosa Airport qualify for inclusion in the contract tower
cost-sharing program and the Committee recommendation includes
funding for their participation.
National airspace redesign.--Of the funds appropriated for
this activity, $12,500,000 shall be for the NY/NJ Airspace
Redesign effort and shall not be reprogrammed by the FAA for
other activities, including airspace redesign activities
outside the NY/NJ metro area.
Safety Personnel.--The Committee has approved 221 full time
positions (FTPs) and 110.5 full time equivalent staff years
(FTEs) for new Flight Standards, Aircraft Certification and
Aviation Medical personnel. Following the ValuJet crash in
1996, the FAA Administrator tasked the agency's Deputy
Administrator to lead a 90-day review of the FAA's safety
oversight functions. The report generated by the agency's
review team concluded that the FAA needed to improve its
surveillance of newly certificated air carriers and increase
its aviation inspector workforce to 3,297. In addition, the
final report of National Civil Aviation Review Commission (the
``Mineta Commission'') in December, 1997 assumed that the FAA
would exceed the inspector workforce levels that were
established following the ValuJet crash.
The Committee notes that even with the funds provided in
the fiscal year 2000 supplemental, the safety inspector
workforce remains well below the employment levels recommended
and achieved following the ValuJet crash. At the same time, the
Department of Transportation's fiscal year 2002 performance
plan has set an aggressive goal of an 80 percent reduction in
the rate of fatal accidents in commercial aviation. Since the
90-day review and Mineta Commission reports, the Committee has
been making steady progress toward growing the inspector
workforce to reach the level of 3,297. However, the President's
budget proposed freezing the number of inspectors at 3,229. The
Committee believes that the safety inspection workforce plays a
critical role in the FAA's efforts to meet its stated safety
goals. The Committee expects the FAA to utilize the increased
funding to reach the inspector level of 3,299. The Committee
also expects the Administrator to aggressively recruit to
achieve this level as soon as possible. The Committee includes
$12,200,000 for these safety personnel.
Aircraft certification activities.--The Committee has
provided additional resources for continued operational safety
monitoring activities that are necessary as more aircraft and
aircraft components are entered into service. Specifically, the
Committee intends the funds to support safety enhancement
activities resulting from accident investigations; the
evaluation of new inspection techniques that require
engineering support; the airworthiness certification reviews of
new aircraft and components; and, the development and
implementation of improved, data driven, and systemic
approaches to monitoring the continued safety performance of
certificated products. The Committee includes $3,600,000 for
these aircraft certification activities which represents 52
FTP's and 26 additional FTE's. As the FAA begins to hire staff
for these activities, the Committee requests that the
Administrator review the staffing levels in the Northwest
Mountain region. The Committee is concerned about reports that
the Aircraft Certification Office in Seattle is understaffed
and expects that the agency will take immediate corrective
steps to fill any critical certification-related vacancies.
Safer Skies Agenda.--In 1998, the FAA unveiled its Safer
Skies Agenda which was designed to develop, implement and
monitor intervention strategies in nine accident cause
categories. The agenda includes commercial aviation, general
aviation and cabin safety initiatives. The Committee has
provided $22,700,000 more than the President's request to
enhance and expedite this initiative. The Committee includes
resources for the development of operational and airworthiness
criteria and guidance for instrument approach procedures; pilot
training guidelines for advanced maneuvers; enhanced crew
resource management training to include flight crew member
situational awareness and use of automation to mitigate loss of
control accidents. The Committee recognizes that severe weather
conditions contribute heavily to aviation delays and if
undetected, can present a significant safety risk. The
Committee expects the FAA to expedite the curriculum
development and implementation of advanced weather training for
air traffic controllers and flight service specialists. The
Committee also includes resources to implement the installation
of the Aviation Digital Data System and to study the review
facts surrounding aeronautical decision making. In addition,
resources are included to open up additional Operational and
Supportability Implementation System (OASIS) sites and to
provide scenario-based weather training and testing. The
Committee expects the FAA to provide a progress report to the
House and Senate Appropriations Committee by February 1, 2002,
on the major Safer Skies initiatives, especially in the area of
cabin safety. The Committee includes 28 additional FTP's and 14
additional FTE's for these activities.
Human Intervention and Motivation Study.--Since 1974, the
Human Intervention and Motivation Study (HIMS) has served as a
comprehensive education and training program for alcohol and
drug abuse prevention in the air transportation workplace. One
of the successful components of the HIMS program has been its
emphasis on peer identification and intervention. The 90
percent long term recovery rate is further evidence of the
program's effectiveness. The Committee provides $500,000 out of
available funds to continue the Human Intervention and
Motivation Study.
Drug and Alcohol Validity Testing Study.--The Department of
Transportation (DOT) revised its drug and alcohol regulations
in December, 2000. The regulations address the use of validity
testing which is designed to deter and detect attempts to
adulterate or substitute specimens. The Committee is concerned
over reports that some categories of transportation employees
could inadvertently fail to meet the current validity standards
due to treatments for certain health related issues, working
conditions or dietary habits. The Committee is aware that the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is in the process
of finalizing its rules on validity testing standards. The
Committee is also aware that once the HHS rule is finalized
that the DOT will publish a notice requiring validity testing
in the transportation industry. The Committee recommendation
provides $250,000 for a comprehensive study of validity testing
to ensure the highest level of accuracy.
Airport Security Improvements.--With the passage last year
of the Airport Security Improvement Act of 2000, the FAA is
required to implement a fingerprint based criminal history
background check at all commercial service airports within 24
months for all employees with unescorted privileges to secure
airport areas. This act will significantly increase the number
of aviation related employees that will be subject to
fingerprint based criminal history checks from a few thousand
to 100,000 or more annually for an indefinite period. Given
that consideration and the importance of processing electronic
fingerprints in a timely fashion to both strengthen airport
security and prevent an unnecessary burden on potential
employees, the Committee urges the FAA to work cooperatively
with airports and the aviation industry to develop and
implement a streamlined electronic process for transmitting
fingerprints from airports and airlines directly to the FBI.
Medallion Program.--The Committee recommendation provides
$3,000,000 for the government and industry cooperative program
to improve rural air safety in Alaska. This program recognizes
that aviation safety is the responsibility of all in the
aviation industry as well as the regulatory responsibility of
the FAA. This program focuses the effort to improve rural
aviation safety in Alaska beyond the regulatory environment and
provides proactive tools for industry participants to prevent
accidents and to improve and measure safety management by air
carriers.
Personnel Reform.--In April 1996, at the request of the
Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation
Administration, Congress directed the FAA to develop its own
personnel and compensation systems to give the agency more
flexibility in hiring, training, compensating and retaining a
highly technical and experienced workforce. Under congressional
mandate and in consultation with experts in personnel
management, FAA commenced negotiating with its employees. Four
employee groups have completed negotiations with FAA thus far.
Three of these negotiated agreements, two with the National Air
Traffic Controllers Association and one with the Professional
Airways Systems Specialists, were implemented immediately upon
ratification by the employees. The fourth agreement, between
the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal
Employees and the FAA, covering employees in FAA's
headquarters, was ratified in late February 2001 but has not
been implemented by the agency. The Committee is concerned that
the failure to implement this contract has resulted in lost
opportunities to obtain important productivity gains and a
deterioration in the relationship between the agency and its
employees. The Committee expects the agency to implement the
ratified agreement immediately so that improved productivity
can be achieved and employee morale can be improved.
Alien Species Action Plan (ASAP).--The Committee provides
$3,000,000 out of available funds for implementation of the
Alien Species Action Plan (ASAP) which was adopted by the
Federal Aviation Administration as part of its August 26, 1998
Record of Decision approving certain improvements at Kahului
Airport on the Island of Maui. These funds shall be used to
reimburse the State of Hawaii for costs arising from the
requirements of the ASAP mandated by the FAA.
Air Traffic Services Subcommittee.--Section 302(c) of the
Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st
Century established the Air Traffic Services Subcommittee. The
Subcommittee is responsible for oversight of the
administration, management, conduct, direction and supervision
of the air traffic control system. In addition, the
Subcommittee is expected to review and approve the strategic
plan for the air traffic control system and all procurements of
air traffic control equipment in excess of $100,000,000. While
the Subcommittee members were appointed in December, 2000, the
Subcommittee lacks specific resources to hire the staff
necessary to support the Subcommittee's mission. Within the
funds provided, the Committee includes $862,000 for the
necessary staff and operational costs.
Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS).--Last summer, the
Administrator appointed an Independent Review Board to review
and provide recommendations on the Wide Area Augmentation
System (WAAS). The Review Board's final report in January found
that the WAAS concept is sound and that the system's value will
continue to grow once it is fully operational. The Board's
report included recommendations for near term, mid-term and
long-term actions that the FAA should take in order to achieve
the maximum capability from WAAS. Within the funds provided,
the Committee includes $5,000,000 to increase the number of
non-precision GPS instrument approaches developed and published
for airports that are not Part 139 certificated and to develop
GPS routes to help supplement the current airway route system.
These routes will allow general aviation pilots to safely
transition through congested and special use airspace, to avoid
weather conditions that may threaten flight safety and will
permit increased access to airports currently inaccessible by
instrument flight.
Account-wide adjustments.--The Committee recommends
reductions totaling $9,000,000 in the following areas: travel
and transportation of persons; communications, utilities, and
miscellaneous charges; and, supplies and materials. These
reductions are intended to maintain spending in these areas at
the fiscal year 2001 levels and are necessary due to budget
constraints.

Facilities and Equipment

(Airport and Airway Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................ $2,656,765,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 2,914,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,914,000,000

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $5,844,883 pursuant to section 1403 of
Public Law 106-554.

Under the ``Facilities and equipment'' appropriation,
safety, capacity and efficiency of the Federal airway system
are improved by the procurement and installation of new
equipment and the construction and modernization of facilities
to keep pace with aeronautical activity and in accordance with
the Federal Aviation Administration's comprehensive capital
investment plan [CIP], formerly called the national airspace
system [NAS] plan.
The Federal Aviation Administration's most recent estimate
is that it will spend approximately $41,000,000,000 on the Air
Traffic Control Modernization effort from 1981 through 2004.
The bill includes an appropriation of $2,914,000,000 for
the facilities and equipment of the Federal Aviation
Administration. This appropriation represents an increase of 10
percent above the level provided for fiscal year 2001. The bill
does not provide the advanced appropriations requested by the
administration. The Committee's recommended distributions of
the funds for each of the major accounts are as follows:

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Committee
Program name 2001 enacted 2002 estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPING................ $56,480,000 $36,634,000 $36,834,000
SAFE FLIGHT 21............................................... 35,000,000 26,500,000 39,300,000
--------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL--ADV DEV/PROTOTYPING.......................... 91,480,000 63,134,000 76,134,000
==================================================
AVIATION WEATHER SERVICES IMPROVEMENTS....................... 18,400,000 ............... ...............
EN ROUTE AUTOMATION.......................................... 14,600,000 72,200,000 46,200,000
OCEANIC AUTOMATION SYSTEM.................................... 51,970,000 84,400,000 84,400,000
AERONAUTICAL DATA LINK (ADL) APPLICATIONS.................... 30,200,000 35,813,200 35,813,200
NEXT GENERATION VHF A/G COMMUNICATION SYSTEM................. 12,300,000 15,950,000 15,950,000
FREE FLIGHT PHASE ONE........................................ 177,800,000 122,570,000 122,570,000
FREE FLIGHT PHASE TWO........................................ 15,000,000 114,900,000 69,900,000
--------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL--EN ROUTE PROGRAMS............................ 320,270,000 445,833,200 374,833,200
==================================================
TERMINAL AUTOMATION (STARS).................................. 117,000,000 104,700,000 104,700,000
==================================================
LOCAL AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM FOR GPS (LAAS)................ 37,000,000 16,660,000 16,660,000
WIDE AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM (WAAS)......................... 74,800,000 49,000,000 49,000,000
--------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL--LANDING/NAVAIDS.............................. 111,800,000 65,660,000 65,660,000
==================================================
NAS IMPROVEMENT OF SYSTEM SUPPORT LABORATORY................. 2,162,000 2,300,000 2,300,000
TECHNICAL CENTER FACILITIES.................................. 8,795,000 11,000,000 11,000,000
TECHNICAL CENTER INFRASTRUCTURE SUSTAINMENT.................. 2,726,000 2,900,000 2,900,000
--------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, RDT&E EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES............... 13,683,000 16,200,000 16,200,000
==================================================
TOTAL ACTIVITY 1....................................... 654,233,000 695,527,200 637,527,200
==================================================
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

EN ROUTE AUTOMATION.......................................... 122,200,000 162,763,000 155,863,000
NEXT GENERATION WEATHER RADAR (NEXRAD)....................... 4,100,000 6,300,000 6,300,000
AIR TRAFFIC OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT............................ 940,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
WEATHER AND RADAR PROCESSOR (WARP)........................... 20,000,000 24,171,000 24,171,000
AERONAUTICAL DATA LINK (ADL) APPLICATIONS.................... 1,200,000 2,300,000 2,300,000
ARTCC BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS/PLANT IMPROVEMENTS............... 58,950,000 44,000,000 44,000,000
VOICE SWITCHING AND CONTROL SYSTEM (VSCS).................... 2,700,000 13,100,000 16,000,000
AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT....................................... 25,944,000 43,300,000 49,300,000
CRITICAL COMMUNICATIONS SUPPORT.............................. 1,880,000 1,900,000 1,900,000
AIR/GROUND COMMUNICATION INFRASTRUCTURE...................... 16,074,000 24,400,000 30,700,000
VOLCANO MONITOR.............................................. 2,000,000 ............... 2,000,000
ATC BEACON INTERROGATOR (ATCBI) REPLACEMENT.................. 75,612,000 65,927,500 66,412,500
ATC EN ROUTE RADAR FACILITIES................................ 2,844,000 3,000,000 3,000,000
EN ROUTE COMMS AND CONTROL FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT............ 7,631,000 1,540,280 1,540,280
AVIATION WEATHER SERVICES IMPROVEMENTS....................... 8,218,000 15,720,000 22,520,000
AVIATION WEATHER SERVICES IMPROVEMENTS--CORRIDOR INFORMATION ............... ............... 5,000,000
WEATHER SYSTEM (CIWS).......................................
FAA TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE (FTI).................. 29,400,000 39,000,000 39,000,000
NATIONWIDE DIFFERENTIAL GPS.................................. 6,000,000 ............... ...............
NEXT GENERATION VHF AIR-GROUND COMMS SYSTEM (NEXCOMM)........ ............... 19,000,000 19,000,000
GUAM CERAP--RELOCATE......................................... ............... 6,400,000 6,400,000
OCEANIC AUTOMATION SYSTEM.................................... ............... 3,700,000 3,700,000
--------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL--EN ROUTE PROGRAMS............................ 385,693,000 477,521,780 500,106,780
==================================================
AIRPORT SURFACE DETECTION EQUIPMENT (ASDE)................... 4,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
AIRPORT SURFACE DETECTION EQUIPMENT (ASDE-X)................. 8,400,000 24,800,000 24,800,000
TERMINAL DOPPLER WEATHER RADAR (TDWR)--PROVIDE............... 5,100,000 3,000,000 3,000,000
TERMINAL AUTOMATION.......................................... 75,550,000 98,500,000 87,500,000
TERMINAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES REPLACEMENT.......... 145,492,606 100,700,000 117,700,000
CONTROL TOWER/TRACON FACILITIES--IMPROVE..................... 41,759,672 54,558,059 57,558,059
TERMINAL VOICE SWITCH REPLACEMENT (TVSR)/ETVS................ 14,000,000 11,947,500 21,947,500
EMPLOYEE SAFETY/OSHA AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE STDS....... 28,400,000 28,400,000 28,400,000
HOUSTON AREA AIR TRAFFIC SYSTEM.............................. 12,000,000 11,000,000 11,000,000
NEW AUSTIN AIRPORT AT BERGSTROM.............................. 2,500,000 ............... ...............
POTOMAC METROPLEX............................................ 25,800,000 6,300,000 6,300,000
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA METROPLEX................................ 6,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
ATLANTA METROPLEX............................................ 3,400,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
NAS INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (NIMS).................. 13,100,000 30,325,100 18,000,000
AIRPORT SURVEILLANCE RADAR (ASR-9)........................... 11,122,000 12,800,000 22,800,000
AIRPORT MOVEMENT AREA SAFETY SYSTEM (AMASS).................. 20,650,000 12,627,500 13,127,500
VOICE RECORDER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM........................... 3,632,000 3,600,000 3,600,000
TERMINAL DIGITAL RADAR (ASR-11).............................. 69,690,000 156,377,500 108,530,600
WEATHER SYSTEMS PROCESSOR.................................... 22,400,000 3,927,500 3,927,500
DOD/FAA ATC FACILITIES TRANSFER.............................. 2,600,000 1,100,000 2,800,000
PRECISION RUNWAY MONITORS.................................... 2,000,000 3,927,500 3,927,500
TERMINAL RADAR (ASR)--IMPROVE................................ 3,233,000 3,837,500 3,837,500
TERMINAL COMMUNICATIONS IMPROVEMENTS......................... 1,550,700 936,700 936,700
MODE S--PROVIDE.............................................. 1,974,000 2,100,000 2,100,000
TERMINAL APPLIED ENGINEERING................................. 6,700,000 6,500,000 6,500,000
--------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL--TERMINAL PROGRAMS............................ 531,053,978 588,264,859 559,292,859
==================================================
AUTOMATED SURFACE OBSERVING SYSTEM (ASOS).................... 11,500,000 12,300,000 13,280,000
OASIS........................................................ 23,100,000 33,943,000 33,943,000
WEATHER MESSAGE SWITCHING CENTER REPLACEMENT................. 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000
FLIGHT SERVICE FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT........................ 1,277,500 1,202,100 1,202,100
FLIGHT SERVICE STATION SWITCH MODERNIZATION.................. 6,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000
FLIGHT SERVICE STATION MODERNIZATION......................... 4,000,000 4,700,000 4,700,000
--------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL--FLIGHT SERVICE PROGRAMS...................... 48,377,500 64,645,100 65,625,100
==================================================
VOR.......................................................... 2,632,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM (ILS)--ESTABLISH/UPGRADE........... 85,000,000 18,753,000 30,753,000
ILS--REPLACE MARK 1A, 1B, AND 1C............................. 1,000,000 ............... ...............
TRANSPONDER LANDING SYSTEM (TLS)............................. 3,000,000 ............... 6,000,000
LOW LEVEL WINDSHEAR ALERT SYSTEM (LLWAS)..................... 5,734,000 1,533,000 1,533,000
RUNWAY VISUAL RANGE (RVR).................................... 8,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000
NDB SUSTAIN.................................................. 940,000 1,013,000 1,013,000
NAVIGATIONAL AND LANDING AIDS--IMPROVE....................... 2,955,922 2,525,361 2,525,361
ILS--REPLACE GRN-27.......................................... 1,000,000 ............... ...............
APPROACH LIGHTING SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT (ALSIP)................. 30,000,000 5,367,000 33,331,000
PRECISION APPROACH PATH INDICATORS (PAPI).................... 6,000,000 13,500,000 13,500,000
DISTANCE MEASURING EQUIPMENT (DME)........................... 1,428,000 2,800,000 4,800,000
VISUAL NAVAIDS............................................... 2,820,000 3,000,000 3,000,000
GULF OF MEXICO OFFSHORE PROGRAM.............................. 1,900,000 6,900,000 6,900,000
LORAN-C UPGRADE/MODERNIZATION................................ 25,000,000 13,000,000 21,000,000
WIDE AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM (WAAS) FOR GPS................. ............... 26,900,000 26,900,000
LOCAL AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM (LAAS) FOR GPS................ ............... 17,449,700 27,449,700
INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES AUTOMATION (IAPA)............. ............... 3,700,000 3,700,000
NAVIGATION AND LANDING AIDS--SERVICE LIFE EXTENSION PROGRAM ............... 3,000,000 3,000,000
(SLEP)......................................................
--------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL--LANDING AND NAVIGATIONAL AIDS................ 177,409,922 124,441,061 190,405,061
==================================================
ALASKAN NAS INTERFACILITY COMM SYSTEM (ANICS)................ 6,000,000 2,500,000 4,000,000
FUEL STORAGE TANK REPLACEMENT AND MONITORING................. 10,500,000 9,300,000 9,300,000
FAA BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT--IMPROVE/MODERNIZE............... 10,000,000 11,700,000 11,700,000
ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS--SUSTAIN/SUPPORT.................... 28,200,000 54,200,000 54,200,000
AIR NAVAIDS AND ATC FACILITIES (LOCAL PROJECTS).............. 1,880,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
AIRCRAFT RELATED EQUIPMENT PROGRAM........................... 6,000,000 14,700,000 7,500,000
COMPUTER AIDED ENG GRAPHICS (CAEG) REPLACEMENT............... 2,600,000 2,600,000 2,600,000
CABLE LOOP SYSTEMS........................................... 5,400,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION........................... ............... 1,500,000 1,500,000
AIRCRAFT FLEET MODERNIZATION................................. ............... 1,500,000 1,500,000
--------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL--OTHER ATC FACILITIES......................... 70,580,000 104,000,000 98,300,000
==================================================
TOTAL ACTIVITY 2....................................... 1,213,114,400 1,358,872,800 1,413,729,800
==================================================
NON-ATC FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

NAS MANAGEMENT AUTOMATION PROGRAM (NASMAP)................... 1,034,000 1,100,000 1,100,000
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT............................... 22,600,000 21,700,000 21,700,000
AVIATION SAFETY ANALYSIS SYSTEM (ASAS)....................... 15,980,000 22,100,000 22,100,000
OPERATIONAL DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (ODMS).................... 1,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000
LOGISTICS SUPPORT SYSTEM AND FACILITIES...................... 7,500,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
TEST EQUIPMENT--MAINTENANCE SUPPORT.......................... 940,000 900,000 900,000
INTEGRATED FLIGHT QUALITY ASSURANCE.......................... 2,200,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
SAFETY PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS SUBSYSTEM (SPAS)................. 2,400,000 2,100,000 2,100,000
NATIONAL AVIATION SAFETY DATA CENTER......................... 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000
NAS RECOVERY COMMUNICATIONS (RCOM)........................... 4,700,000 4,800,000 4,800,000
PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT SYSTEM............................... 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000
EXPLOSIVE DETECTION TECHNOLOGY............................... 99,500,000 97,500,000 97,500,000
FACILITY SECURITY RISK MANAGEMENT............................ 19,339,000 22,400,000 22,400,000
INFORMATION SECURITY......................................... 11,200,000 13,600,000 13,600,000
--------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL--SUPPORT EQUIPMENT............................ 192,693,000 200,500,000 200,500,000
==================================================
AERONAUTICAL CENTER INFRASTRUCTURE MODERNIZATION............. 7,200,000 12,000,000 12,000,000
NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM (NAS) TRAINING FACILITIES........... 1,880,000 2,000,000 ...............
DISTANCE LEARNING............................................ 2,162,000 1,300,000 1,300,000
--------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL--TRAINING EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES.............. 11,242,000 15,300,000 13,300,000
==================================================
TOTAL ACTIVITY 3....................................... 203,935,000 215,800,000 213,800,000
==================================================
MISSION SUPPORT

SYSTEM ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT................... 24,711,000 26,300,000 26,300,000
PROGRAM SUPPORT LEASES....................................... 33,800,000 35,500,000 35,500,000
LOGISTICS SUPPORT SERVICES................................... 6,300,000 7,200,000 7,200,000
MIKE MONRONEY AERONAUTICAL CENTER--LEASE..................... 14,000,000 14,600,000 14,600,000
IN-PLANT NAS CONTRACT SUPPORT SERVICES....................... 2,619,000 2,800,000 2,800,000
TRANSITION ENGINEERING SUPPORT............................... 37,539,000 38,300,000 38,300,000
FREQUENCY AND SPECTRUM ENGINEERING--PROVIDE.................. 2,900,000 3,000,000 3,000,000
PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION MOVES............................ 26,400,000 11,800,000 11,800,000
FAA SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE...................................... 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
TECHNICAL SERVICES SUPPORT CONTRACT (TSSC)................... 44,911,000 45,800,000 45,800,000
RESOURCE TRACKING PROGRAM.................................... 3,450,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
CENTER FOR ADVANCED AVIATION SYSTEM DEV. (MITRE)............. 65,200,000 76,400,000 81,543,000
--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL ACTIVITY 4....................................... 262,830,000 266,700,000 271,843,000
==================================================
PERSONNEL AND RELATED EXPENSES

PERSONNEL AND RELATED EXPENSES............................... 322,652,600 377,100,000 377,100,000
==================================================
TOTAL.................................................. 2,656,765,000 2,914,000,000 2,914,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

engineering, development, test, and evaluation

The Committee recommends $637,527,200 for engineering,
development, test and evaluation. Adjustments to the budget
request are explained below.
Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping.--The
recommendation includes $6,700,000 for the wind profiling and
weather research activities at Juneau, Alaska, transfers the
ADS-B surveillance funding ($2,800,000) to the Safe Flight 21
line, and denies the funding for Navigation ($5,700,000)
included in this line. Also included in the recommendation is
$2,000,000 for the airfield pavement improvement program
authorized under section 905 of Public Law 106-181.
Safe Flight 21.--The Committee recommendation includes full
funding of the President's budget request for Safe Flight 21.
The funding in excess of the request is for additional
activities associated with the Capstone initiative including
funding to install a Capstone display in the Bethel, Alaska
tower. In addition, the Committee believes that ADS-B
technologies hold promise for addressing the growing problem of
runway incursions, particularly at airports with the most
complicated ground traffic patterns. As the Safe Flight 21
program proceeds, attention should be given to how this program
might contribute to greater safety on the airport and how Safe
Flight technologies could be applied to the runway incursion
challenge. The Committee notes that the additional resources
provided for the Capstone program include resources to be used
for the development of additional cockpit weather software and
continuation of the ground station and avionics installed in
Frederick, Maryland. In addition, the Committee supports the
continuation of survey data collection, validation and
dissemination in pursuit of the goal to place maps of general
aviation airports on moving map equipment in the cockpit. The
Committee believes that this process is the first step to
determine whether ADS-B technology can play a constructive and
meaningful role in reducing runway incursions and further
enhancing aviation safety. Accordingly, the Committee
encourages the FAA to disseminate the database of airport
diagrams at no cost to manufacturers.
En Route Automation.--The Committee is aware of the recent
Board of Contract Appeals decision that prohibited a single
source award in the En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM)
procurement. While the Committee remains hopeful that the
procurement flexibility that Congress allowed the FAA will
expedite modernization and the pace of procurements,
unfortunately, the ERAM program would seem to have resulted in
a delay of this modernization initiative. The Committee
encourages the FAA to proceed with this procurement consistent
with the order issued by the Special Master. The funding in
this account has been reduced to reflect the delay in the
procurement as a result of the FAA sole source procurement
approach which resulted in the Special Master's decision.
Free Flight Phase Two.--The Committee recommendation denies
$45,000,000 of the budget request for this activity in order to
fund higher priority activities. The Committee recommendation
includes $69,900,000 for Free Flight Phase Two activities, an
increase of $44,900,000 from the fiscal year 2001 appropriated
level.
Air Traffic Simulation Equipment.--The Committee
understands that FAA plans to provide new air traffic
simulation capabilities for air traffic controller training as
part of its program to modernize the en route ATC automation
system. Given the major changes anticipated in the future en
route ATC environment coupled with controller retirements, air
traffic controller training requirements are expected to grow
and new traffic simulation capabilities will play a vital role
in the training program. Further, a major lesson learned from
the upgrade of the terminal part of the ATC system is that
early involvement of the controller workforce in development of
the system is critical to timely acceptance and implementation
of any significant changes. Therefore, the Committee expects
the FAA to proceed with the acquisition of any new simulation
capabilities carefully and follow a procurement plan that
protects the best interests of the government. At a minimum,
the plan should assure the timely input of the controller
workforce and that the best available technology at the lowest
life-cycle costs is acquired through an approach that
encourages participation by experienced commercial suppliers of
simulation technology.

Subtotal--Terminal Programs

Local Area Augmentation System for GPS (LAAS).--The
Committee recommendation for LAAS activity I and activity II
provides an increase of $10,000,000 more than the budget
request for certification support and additional implementation
activities. The Committee believes that LAAS can provide
significant safety, operational, and capacity enhancing
benefits in the terminal and airport environment. The Committee
supports the industry efforts to facilitate the realization of
the system benefits envisioned by this program and recommends
the following program distribution: development of minimum
operational performance standards (MOPS) and Standards and
Recommended Practices (SARPS) for LAAS Category II/III,
$6,000,000; complete development of competitive LAAS Category I
RFP for fiscal year 2002 award, $4,000,000; Terminal Procedures
(TERPS) development, data collection, procedures, and flight
inspection for Category I at Government/Industry Partnership
(GIP) sites, $6,000,000; completion of receiver development and
certification, $3,000,000; Area Navigation (RNAV) Instrument
Flight Procedures, $1,000,000; Category I LAAS full scale
development contract, $3,209,700; Category I LAAS system
acquisition, $15,000,000; and FAA-Industry Cooperative
Agreement, $5,900,000. Under the recommendation, funding is
provided for the procurement and installation of a LAAS system
at Las Vegas-McCarran International Airport. In addition, the
Committee recommendation includes funds within the various
distributions to resolve the integrity issues to be addressed
consistent with the FAA certification process.
Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS).--The Committee
recommendation fully funds the WAAS budget requests for both
Activity I and Activity II. The Committee encourages the FAA to
aggressively pursue resolution of the integrity challenges
facing the program and to expeditiously seek certification of
procedures consistent with the current program decision
altitudes. The FAA Administrator has advocated ``build a
little, test a little'' concepts for NAS modernization and the
Committee believes that this program provides an opportunity
for implementation of that strategy.
In addition, the Committee notes that the recommendation
includes $10,000,000 for the development of standards and
procedures, including surveys. The Committee directs the FAA to
focus on increasing the number of non-precision GPS instruments
approaches developed and published for airports that are not
Part 139 certificated. In addition, should this program
continue to experience the programmatic slippages that have
plagued it since its inception, the Committee would look
favorably on a reprogramming to commit additional resources to
this immediately beneficial activity.
Technical Center Facilities.--The Committee recommendation
provides for the full request for technical center facilities.

Air Traffic Control Facilities and Equipment

En Route Automation.--The Committee recommendation deletes
$6,900,000 in NAS handoff costs not appropriately budgeted in
facilities and equipment.
Voice Switching and Control System (VSCS).--The Committee
recommendation provides $16,000,000 for this program to
facilitate the FAA creation of additional sectors to address
aviation traffic choke points.
Air Traffic Management.--The Committee recommendation
provides $49,300,000 for Air Traffic Management delay reduction
efforts to permit greater realization of departure sequencing
program initiatives providing fast, graphical interface
communications among and between controllers and traffic
managers.
Air/Ground Communications Infrastructure.--The Committee
recommendation provides $30,700,000, an increase of $6,300,000.
The additional resources are in support of the Choke Point
program to alleviate delays reflected in the Committee's
recommended increases in other lines in this account. The
Committee anticipates regular communication from the
Administrator related to the execution of the Choke Point
program consistent with the program justification provided with
the budget request.
Volcano Monitor.--The Committee recommendation includes
$2,000,000, the same level provided in the fiscal year 2001
bill.
ATC Beacon Interrogator (ATCBI)--Replacement.--The
Committee recommendation includes an increase of $485,000 to
the budget request for an air traffic control beacon
interrogator 5 (ATCBI-5) at Keahole-Kona Airport.
Aviation Weather Services Improvements.--The Committee
recommendation includes $22,500,000, an increase of $6,800,000
from the budget request. The increase is for increased
deployment of Integrated Terminal Weather Systems (ITWS) beyond
the four prototype systems. Weather is the largest contributor
to air traffic delays and ITWS technologies integrate weather
data from various weather sensors and will provide increased
forecasts of anticipated weather conditions.
Aviation Weather Services Improvements--Corridor
Information Weather System (CIWS).--The Committee
recommendation provides $5,000,000 for the Corridor Information
Weather System (CIWS). CWIS is a multi-phase program that will
utilize terminal and enroute real time weather sensors to
provide a convective weather forecast for congested enroute
corridors.

Terminal programs

Terminal Air Traffic Control Facilities--Replace.--The
Committee recommendation provides $117,700,000 for this
program. The recommendation provides funding for the following
projects:

Newburgh, NY............................................ $2,200,000
Portland (TRACON), OR................................... 75,000
Deer Valley, AZ......................................... 805,000
Seattle (TRACON), WA.................................... 26,084,000
Bedford, MA............................................. 468,000
Newport News, VA........................................ 1,300,000
Louisville, KY.......................................... 1,600,000
Corpus Christi, TX...................................... 650,000
Vero Beach, FL.......................................... 592,000
Spokane, WA............................................. 3,120,000
Reno--Tahoe (Relocation of tower and TRACON), NV........ 11,080,000
Indianapolis, IN........................................ 820,000
Swanton, OH............................................. 824,000
Oshkosh, WI............................................. 365,000
Chantilly, VA........................................... 970,000
Manchester, NH.......................................... 5,840,000
Wilmington, DE.......................................... 55,000
Albuquerque, NM......................................... 593,000
Battle Creek, MI........................................ 2,125,000
Savannah, GA............................................ 500,000
Newark, NJ.............................................. 1,407,000
Everett, WA............................................. 1,064,000
Rogers, AR.............................................. 750,000
Billings, MT............................................ 2,725,000
Baltimore (ATCT), MD.................................... 175,000
Houston (TRACON), TX.................................... 75,000
Islip, NY............................................... 550,000
Phoenix, AZ............................................. 18,330,000
St. Louis (TRACON), MO.................................. 2,400,000
Boston, MA.............................................. 7,066,000
Port Columbus, OH....................................... 1,229,000
Salina, KS.............................................. 560,000
Richmond, VA............................................ 2,500,000
N. Las Vegas, NV........................................ 550,000
East Saint Louis, IL.................................... 572,000
Fort Lauderdale(Exec), FL............................... 638,000
Seattle (ATCT), WA...................................... 2,922,000
Abilene, TX............................................. 1,045,000
LaGuardia, NY........................................... 2,000,000
Pascagoula, MS.......................................... 2,125,000
West Palm Beach (ATCT), FL.............................. 175,000
Beaumont, TX............................................ 800,000
Roanoke, VA............................................. 2,140,000
Grand Canyon, AZ........................................ 1,500,000
Topeka, KS.............................................. 2,875,000
Reno, NV................................................ 1,461,000

Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR)--Provide.--The
Committee recommendation provides $3,000,000 for this activity
and is supportive of siting a TDWR at Baton Rouge Metropolitan
Airport, but is mindful that the procurement of TDWR equipment
is virtually completed. As additional technologies are fielded
and TDWR units become available, or as the Low Level Windshear
Alert System (LLWAS) procurement matures, the Committee expects
the FAA to fully explore siting a LLWAS or TDWR system at Baton
Rouge Metropolitan Airport.
Terminal Automation.--The Committee recommendation deletes
$11,100,000 from the budget request for activity 2 terminal
sustainment support for ARTS IIIA and ARTS IIE/IIIE. Further,
the Committee recommendation denies $11,000,000 of the STARS
deployment funding due to anticipated schedule slippages in
installation of the new equipment and the need to fund higher
priority activities. The Committee is aware of the concern
about potential delays in the STARS ``waterfall'' related to
facilities not being ready for deployment of the new Stars
equipment. The Committee directs the FAA to aggressively manage
facility preparation to allow the introduction of this
modernized equipment and to report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations if delays in the deployment
schedule become inevitable. In addition, the Committee directs
the FAA to report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations on the status of the cost and deployment
baseline for the STARS procurement. Failure to provide such a
baseline will jeopardize the Committee's support for future
deployment funding for STARS.
Control Tower/tracon Facilities--Improve.--The Committee
recommendation includes an additional $3,000,000 to continue
the cable loop relocation project at Lambert-St. Louis
International Airport. In addition, the Committee directs the
FAA to report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriation on the cost, feasibility, and schedule to the
acquisition of an air traffic control tower simulation facility
sited in the new Newark Traffic Control Tower.
Terminal Voice Switch Replacement (TVSR)/ETVS.--The
Committee recommendation provides an increase of $10,000,000 to
$21,947,500 to expedite the replacement of electromechanical
and non-supportable electronic voice switching systems to
continue reliable voice communications in support of air
traffic terminal operations.
NAS Infrastructure Management System (NIMS).--The Committee
recommends $18,000,000 for the NAS infrastructure management
system (NIMS), an increase of $4,900,000 from the fiscal year
2001 appropriated level.
Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR-9).--The Committee
recommendation provides $22,800,000, an increase of $10,000,000
above the budget request. The additional funds are to expedite
the ASR-9 service life extension program.
Airport Movement Area Safety System (AMASS).--The Committee
recommendation provides $13,127,500, an increase of $500,000
above the budget request. Within the funds provided, $500,000
is to procure and deploy an AMASS unit at the North Las Vegas
Airport.
Voice Recorder Replacement Program.--The Committee
recommendation fully funds the Administration request. The
Committee notes that the FAA is delinquent in reporting to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations evaluating the
benefits and advisability of deployable flight data recorders
to complement current voice and data recorders. The FAA is
directed to complete and transmit the report as soon as
possible to permit consideration before the conclusion of
congressional consideration of the fiscal year 2002
appropriations act.
Terminal Digital Radar (ASR-11).--The Committee
recommendation provides $108,530,600 for the ASR-11
procurement, a reduction of $47,846,900 from the budget
request, but an increase of almost $40,000,000 from the fiscal
year 2001 appropriation. The Committee is aware of the
persistent delays in this procurement and the testing
difficulties that the FAA and the Department of Defense have
encountered. Accordingly, the FAA schedule to procure ASR-11
radars under this program will continue to slip, obviating the
need for the requested funding in fiscal year 2002. Within the
funds provided, the Committee directs the FAA to complete
surveys for the following siting of ASR-11 or ASR-9 radars,
which may become available as the FAA ASR-9 SLEP proceeds:
Eagle County Airport, Colorado (site survey and study
anticipated to be completed in September 2001); Yakutat ASR-11;
Cleveland Hopkins International Airport (or southern coast of
Lake Erie) ASR-11; Jackson Hole, WY ASR-11 (site survey and
study anticipated to be completed by September 2001); and
Central Oregon ASR-11.
The Committee notes that a temporary ASR-9 is anticipated
to be sited between Salt Lake City and Provo, Utah in time for
the 2002 Winter Olympics. The Committee directs the FAA to plan
for leaving the ASR-9 radar at the Utah location after the
Olympics until an ASR-11 is available to replace the temporary
ASR-9. The Committee understands that this may require
acquisition of another temporary air surveillance radar to meet
other temporary surveillance radar requirements.
DOD/FAA ATC Facilities Transfer.--The Committee recommends
$2,800,000, including $1,700,000 for the Lawton/Fort Sill
regional Airport ARAC (Airport Radar Approach Control). The
Committee directs the FAA to provide a report outlining the
costs and benefits of a permanent solution to the Fort Sill
ARAC staffing and equipment requirement not later than
September 5, 2001.
Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS).--The Committee
recommends $13,280,000 and directs the distribution of the
funding over the budget request as follows:

Henderson Executive Airport, NV............................... $300,000
Curry Coastal Airpark/Brookings Airport, OR................... 80,000
Mexico Municipal Airport, MO.................................. 100,000
Las Vegas-McCarran International Airport, NV.................. 300,000
West Memphis Airport, AR...................................... 100,000
Newport Municipal Airport, AR
100,000

Instrument Landing System (ILS)--Establish/upgrade.--The
Committee recommendation provides $30,753,000 and directs the
increase above the budget request to be distributed as follows:

Lambert-St. Louis International Airport, MO...................$2,000,000
Wilmington International Airport, NC.......................... 1,154,000
Edenton Northeastern regional airport, NC..................... 500,000
Reno Stead Airport, NV........................................ 2,595,250
Keokuk Airport, IA............................................ 350,000
Rice Lake Regional Airport, WI................................ 1,000,000
Orlando International Airport, FL (Cat 3)..................... 2,000,000
Dalles Municipal Airport, OR.................................. 1,400,750
Klawock, AK................................................... 1,000,000

Transponder Landing System (TLS).--The Committee
recommendation provides $6,000,000, an increase of $3,000,000
over the fiscal year 2001 appropriated level to acquire and
site TLS units. The Committee directs the FAA to conduct
surveys and cost benefit analysis for TLS deployments with the
appropriated funding at the following locations: Brigham City
Airport, UT; Sandpoint Airport, ID; Minden-Tahoe Airport, NV;
Bowers Field, WA; Ellensburg Airport, WA; Friday Harbor
Airport, WA; Omak Airport, WA; Pangborn Memorial Airport, WA;
Prosser Airport, WA; Sunnyside Airport, WA; Elko Regional
Airport, NV; Reno/Stead Airport, NV; La Grande/Union County
Airport, OR; and William H. Morse Airport, VT.
Approach Lighting System Improvement (ALSIP).--The
Committee recommendation provides $33,331,000 for the
procurement and deployment of runway lighting system to
facilitate improved and precision landing capabilities at
various airports. The Committee directs funding to be allocated
to the airports listed below as follows:

Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport lighting
upgrades............................................ $4,000,000
North Bend Airport, OR (ALSIP).......................... 4,500,000
Olive Branch Airport, MS (MALSR)........................ 855,000
Stennis International Airport, MS (MALSR)............... 750,000
North Las Vegas Airport, NV (MALSF)..................... 750,000
Rutland Airport Lighting, VT............................ 1,000,000
Reno-Tahoe International Airport, NV (MALSR)............ 1,000,000
Alaska statewide rural airport lighting................. 11,000,000
Reno Stead Airport, NV (MALSR).......................... 1,462,500
Niagara Falls International Airport, NY (MALSR)......... 2,400,000
Reading Airport, PA (MALSR)............................. 500,000
Baton Rouge Municipal Airport, LA (MALSR)............... 500,000

Distance Measuring Equipment (DME).--The Committee
recommendation provides $4,800,000 for continued acquisition,
replacement, and siting of DME systems. The additional
$2,000,000 above the budget request is to procure and site DME
systems, including localizers, at Batesville Municipal Airport
and Cleveland Hopkins International Airport.
Loran-C Upgrade/Modernization.--The Committee
recommendation provides $21,000,000 for Loran-C upgrades and
modernizations, an increase of $8,000,000 over the budget
request.
Alaskan NAS Interfacility Comm System (ANICS).--The
Committee recommendation provides $4,000,000 for the ANICS
communications program, an increase of $1,500,000 over the
budget request. The increased funding will permit the expedited
improvement of communications capabilities for the FAA in rural
Alaska.
Aircraft Related Equipment Program.--The Committee
recommendation provides $7,500,000, an increase of $1,500,000
over fiscal year 2001 and $7,200,000 below the request. The
reduction is made because of budgetary pressures and without
prejudice.

Non ATC Facilities and Equipment

Explosive Detection Technology.--The Committee
recommendation fully funds the budget request and rejects the
approach taken in the fiscal year 2001 statement of managers
regarding the pairing of the purchase of explosives detection
equipment. Under the acquisition management system used by the
FAA, integrated product teams are established for all major
procurements. These teams include all necessary stakeholders
and resources to manage procurements and deployments critical
to the FAA's mission. The Security Equipment Integrated Product
Team (SEIPT) includes key members from the major air carriers,
regional air carriers, airports and the FAA plus contractors.
The SEIPT is charged with making reasoned procurement decisions
in the best interests of the aviation security program.
Directed contract pairing undermines the basic tenant of
competition by assuring certain procurements regardless of
product performance, the needs and desires of the end users or
the regulatory standards established for utilization. The
benefit of a competitive procurement environment is good value,
cost effectiveness and a product that improves performance
beyond the initial EDS certification standards. To realize a
truly competitive environment the Committee believes that it is
more effective to provide adequate funding to attract and
motivate capable vendors willing to invest in the development,
improvement and maintenance of their products.
Competition already exists for the funding within the
explosive detection systems line item among various initiatives
such as bulk explosives detection, trace detection systems,
threat imaging projection X-ray systems and systems
integration. The Committee through the SEIPT should continue to
provide the requirements, guidance and plans to enhance
aviation baggage and passenger screening and security.
National Airspace System (NAS) Training Facilities.--The
Committee recommendation deletes this request due to budget
constraints, a reduction of $2,000,000 below the budget
request.

Mission Support

Center For Advanced Aviation System Dev. (Mitre).--The
Committee recommendation fully funds this budget request
including a $5,143,000 transfer from elsewhere in the FAA
account.

Research, Engineering, and Development

(Airport and Airway Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 2001....................................\1\ $187,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 187,781,000
Committee recommendation................................ 195,808,000

\1\ Excludes $411,000 in across the board reduction.

This appropriation finances research, engineering, and
development programs to improve the national air traffic
control system by increasing its safety, security,
productivity, and capacity. The programs are designed to meet
the expected air traffic demands of the future and to promote
flight safety. The major objectives are to keep the current
system operating safely and efficiently; to protect the
environment; and to modernize the system through improvements
in facilities, equipment, techniques, and procedures in order
to insure that the system will safely and efficiently handle
the volume of aircraft traffic expected to materialize in the
future.
The Committee directs the FAA to include prior year
breakout information with the budget justification. While the
current justifications are generally informative and useful,
greater detail on the prior and current fiscal year budget
execution would be very useful in the Committee's annual review
and oversight responsibilities.

Committee Recommendation

The Committee recommendation includes $195,808,000, an
increase of $8,027,000 from the fiscal year 2002 budget
request, and an increase of $8,808,000 from the fiscal year
2001 enacted level.
A table showing the fiscal year 2001 enacted level, the
fiscal year 2002 budget estimate, and the Committee
recommendation follows:

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Committee
Program Name 2001 enacted 2002 estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
System Development and Infrastructure:
System planning and resource management..................... $1,164,000 $1,458,000 $1,458,000
Technical laboratory facility............................... 12,250,000 12,545,000 12,545,000
Center for Advanced Aviation System Develop- ment.......... 4,000,000 5,143,000 ..............
Information security........................................ .............. 2,581,000 2,581,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................. 17,414,000 21,727,000 16,584,000
===============================================
Weather:
National laboratory program................................. 16,615,000 .............. ..............
In-house support............................................ 4,391,000 1,962,000 1,962,000
Center for Wind, Ice and Fog................................ 700,000 .............. ..............
Inflight Icing.............................................. .............. 2,068,000 2,068,000
Storm Growth and Decay...................................... .............. 2,964,000 2,964,000
NEXRAD Algorithms........................................... .............. 1,500,000 1,500,000
Aviation Gridded Forecast System............................ .............. 1,870,000 1,870,000
Model Development and Enhancement........................... .............. 1,659,000 1,659,000
Winter Weather Research..................................... .............. 1,550,000 1,550,000
Ceiling and Visibility...................................... .............. 750,000 750,000
Juneau, AK.................................................. 3,100,000 6,700,000 ..............
Turbulence.................................................. .............. 2,749,000 2,749,000
Airborne Humidity Sensor.................................... .............. 501,000 501,000
National Ceiling and Visibility............................. .............. 1,956,000 1,956,000
Oceanic Convective Nowcasting............................... .............. 1,139,000 1,139,000
Wake Turbulence............................................. .............. 1,000,000 5,000,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................. 24,806,000 28,368,000 25,668,000
===============================================
Aircraft Safety Technology:
Aircraft systems fire safety................................ 4,750,000 .............. ..............
Advanced materials/structural safety........................ 2,797,000 2,974,000 2,974,000
Propulsion and fuel systems................................. 8,200,000 5,168,000 8,968,000
Flight safety/atmospheric hazards research.................. 4,109,000 4,150,000 6,420,000
Aging aircraft.............................................. 33,384,000 27,111,000 31,911,000
Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention research........... 2,782,000 2,794,000 2,794,000
Aviation safety risk analysis............................... 6,657,000 5,784,000 5,784,000
Fire research and safety.................................... .............. 5,242,000 5,242,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................. 62,679,000 53,223,000 64,093,000
===============================================
System Security Technology:
Explosives and weapons detection............................ 42,606,000 38,438,000 43,438,000
Aircraft hardening.......................................... 4,307,000 4,640,000 4,640,000
Airport security technology integration..................... 2,462,000 2,084,000 2,084,000
Aviation security human factors............................. 5,145,000 5,163,000 5,163,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................. 54,520,000 50,325,000 55,325,000
===============================================
Human Factors and Aviation Medicine:
Flight deck/maintenance/system integration human factors.... 10,100,000 9,906,000 9,906,000
Air traffic control/airway facilities human factors......... 8,000,000 9,900,000 9,900,000
Aeromedical research........................................ 6,000,000 6,121,000 6,121,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................. 24,100,000 25,927,000 25,927,000
===============================================
Environment and Energy.......................................... 3,481,000 7,602,000 7,602,000
Strategic Partnerships.......................................... .............. 609,000 609,000
===============================================
Total appropriation....................................... 187,000,000 187,781,000 195,808,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

System Development and Infrastructure

System Planning and Resource Management.--The Committee
recommends $1,458,000 for System Planning and Resource. The
Committee recommendation includes $150,000 for North Dakota
State University (NDSU) to conduct a study on the pricing
behavior of airlines operating in small and medium-sized
communities.
Center for Advanced Aviation System Development.--The
Committee recommendation transfers this funding consistent with
the direction provided in the recommendation for the Facilities
and Equipment guidance.

Weather

Juneau, AK.--Consistent with the transfer to, and the
guidance provided in the Facilities and Equipment account, no
funding is provided in the Weather line for the Juneau, Alaska
wind initiative.
Wake Turbulence.--The Committee recommendation provides
$5,000,000 for Wake turbulence research, an increase of
$4,000,000 from the budget estimate.
Aircraft Safety Technology Propulsion and fuel systems.--
The Committee recommendation is $8,968,000, an increase of
$3,800,000 from the budget estimate. Within the funds provided
in the Committee recommendation, $2,000,000 is to continue
activities of the specialty metals processing consortium. The
Committee recommendation includes $1,000,000 for continued
research into the performance and combustion characteristics of
blended aviation fuels containing at least 80 percent ethanol.
In addition, the Committee recommendation includes $800,000 for
the General Aviation Propulsion--Compression Ignition Test and
Evaluation Program (GAP-CITEP), a joint NASA and FAA effort to
evaluate durability testing of alternative fuels (Jet A and
diesel) to facilitate the transition away from leaded aviation
fuels for general aviation.
Flight safety/atmospheric hazards research.--The Committee
recommends $6,420,000, including $2,270,000 for a joint
industry-university aviation safety initiative to conduct in-
flight simulation research at the Roswell Industrial Air Center
for civilian aircraft pilots. The Committee recognizes the
contribution that this research can make to civilian aviation
safety, but is also mindful of the safety considerations
implicit in conducting such research safely in flight.
Accordingly, this research should only be undertaken with this
funding upon determination by the FAA administrator that it can
be conducted safely and consistently with the FAA's research
mission.
Aging aircraft.--The Committee recommendation includes
$31,911,000 for this program, an increase of $4,800,000 from
the budget estimate. The Committee has provided the additional
resources to continue the strong collaboration between the
Government, universities, and industry as represented by the
Center for Aviation Systems Reliability (CASR) initiative, the
Aging Aircraft Nondestructive Inspection Validation Center
(AANC), the Airworthiness Assurance Center of Excellence (AACE)
and the Engine Titanium Consortium (ETC). Within the
appropriation, the recommendation includes $3,800,000, an
increase of $2,000,000 from the budget request for the Center
for Aviation Systems Reliability (CASR); $3,000,000 for the
Aircraft Nondestructive Inspection Validation Center (AANC);
$4,000,000 for the activities of the Engine Titanium Consortium
(ETC) effort, $1,900,000 more than the budget estimate; and
$5,000,000 for other activities of the Airworthiness Assurance
Center of Excellence (AACE), an increase of $1,900,000, over
the budget estimate.

System Security Technology

Explosives and weapons detection.--The Committee
recommendation includes $5,000,000 to continue development of
the pulsed fast neutron analysis (PFNA) cargo inspection
system.

Environment and Energy

Aircraft Engine Noise reduction technology research.--The
Committee is concerned about aircraft engine noise and the
impact that it has on efforts to increase airport capacity and
reduce airline delays. Although airports spend hundreds of
millions of dollars per year on aircraft noise mitigation and
abatement efforts, the FAA and the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) spend only a few million dollars
for aircraft engine noise reduction technology research and
development. The Committee directs the FAA to work with NASA to
conduct a study on aircraft engine noise reduction technology
research. The study shall: (1) examine the goals that the two
agencies and the National Science Technology Council have for
aircraft engine noise reduction and abatement; (2) examine the
research currently being conducted by FAA, NASA, academia,
airports, airlines, as well as aircraft and aircraft engine
manufacturers; (3) determine whether Federal goals and
objectives for aircraft engine noise reduction are consistent
with that research; and (4) if the study concludes that a gap
exists between Federal goals and current research, make
recommendations on how to coordinate aircraft engine noise
reduction research to ensure that most efficient use of Federal
dollars.

Grants-in-Aid for Airports

(Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

(Airport and Airway Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 2001.................................... $3,200,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 1,800,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,800,000,000

Chapter 471 of title 49, U.S.C. authorizes a program of
grants to fund airport planning and development and noise
compatibility planning and projects for public use airports in
all States and territories.
The Committee recommends $1,800,000,000 in liquidating cash
for grants-in-aid for airports. This is consistent with the
Committee's obligation limitation on airport programs for
fiscal year 2002 and for the payment of previous years'
obligations.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Obligation limitation, 2001 \1\......................... $3,200,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 3,300,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,300,000,000

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $7,040,000 pursuant to section 1403 of
Public Law 106-554.

The total program level recommended for fiscal year 2002
for grants-in-aid to airports is $3,300,000,000 and is intended
to be sufficient to continue the important tasks of enhancing
airport and airway safety, ensuring that airport standards can
be met, maintaining existing airport capacity, and developing
additional capacity. The amount provided includes $64,597,000
for administration and airport technology research. Also, the
Administration proposes that the grants-in-aid funds be used to
make up for shortfalls in overflight fee collections to fund
the essential air service program.
The Committee notes that a sizable alternative source of
funding is available to airports in the form of passenger
facility charges [PFC's]. The first PFC charge began for
airlines tickets issued on June 1, 1992. DOT data shows that as
of April 1, 2001, 322 airports have been approved for
collection of PFC's in the amount of $29,600,000,000. During
calendar year 2000 airports collected $1,550,000,000 in PFC
charges and $1,900,000,000 is estimated to be collected in
calendar year 2001. Of the airports collecting PFC's,
approximately one-fifth collected about 90 percent of the
total, and all of these are either large or medium hub
airports. Prior to the authorized increase in PFC charges, the
DOT estimated that these airports will collect more than
$1,600,000,000 in calendar year 2001, depending on the number
of applications received and approved and assuming current
statutory authority. The first collections at the new $4.50 PFC
level began on April 1, 2001 at 31 airports. Eventually, the
funding to airports from the 50 percent nominal increase in
authorized passenger facility charges will result in
dramatically increased resources for airport improvements,
expansions, and enhancements.

Limitation On Obligations

The bill includes a limitation on obligations of
$3,300,000,000 for fiscal year 2002. This is the same as the
President's budget request and $100,000,000 over the fiscal
year 2001 enacted level.
A table showing the distribution of these funds compared to
the fiscal year 2001 levels and the President's budget request
follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Committee
2001 enacted 2002 estimate recommendation \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entitlements.............................................. $1,943,800,000 $2,070,864,521 $2,068,956,211
Primary airports...................................... 1,067,900,000 1,053,755,561 1,053,755,561
Cargo airports (3 percent)............................ 94,200,000 97,311,000 97,062,090
Alaska supplemental................................... 21,100,000 21,057,960 21,057,960
States (20 percent)................................... 628,000,000 648,740,000 647,080,600
Carryover entitlement................................. 132,600,000 250,000,000 250,000,000
Small Airport Fund........................................ 269,000,000 305,399,619 305,399,619
Non hub............................................... ............... 174,514,068 174,514,068
Non commercial service................................ ............... 87,257,034 87,257,034
Small hub............................................. ............... 43,628,517 43,628,517
Discretionary Set Asides.................................. 358,500,000 335,350,704 332,880,836
Noise (34 percent of discretionary)................... 315,300,000 294,928,193 292,756,038
Reliever (0.66 percent of discretionary).............. 6,100,000 5,725,077 5,682,911
Military airport program (4 percent of discretionary). 37,100,000 34,697,434 34,441,887
Other Discretionary....................................... 568,800,000 532,085,156 528,166,334
Capacity/Safety/Security/Noise........................ 426,600,000 399,063,867 396,124,751
Remaining discretionary............................... 142,200,000 133,021,289 132,041,584
Administration............................................ 59,900,000 56,300,000 57,050,000
Airport Research.......................................... ............... ............... 7,547,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total limitation on obligations..................... 3,200,000,000 3,300,000,000 3,300,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Assumes EAS will be fully supported through overflight fee collections.

AIRPORT DISCRETIONARY GRANTS

Within the overall obligation limitation in this bill, over
$1,200,000,000 is available for discretionary grants to
airports. The Committee has carefully considered a broad array
of discretionary grant requests that can be expected in fiscal
year 2002. Specifically, the Committee expects the FAA to give
priority consideration to applications for the projects listed
below in the categories of the AIP for which they are eligible.
If funds in the remaining discretionary category are used for
any projects in fiscal year 2002 that are not listed below, the
Committee expects that they will be for projects for which FAA
has issued letters of intent (including letters of intent the
Committee recommends below that the FAA subsequently issues),
or for projects that will produce significant aviation safety
improvements or significant improvements in systemwide capacity
or otherwise have a very high benefit/cost ratio.
Within the program levels recommended, the Committee
directs that priority be given to applications involving the
further development of the following airports:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airport/State Project
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbeville Municipal Airport, AL................ Various improvements
Abilene Airport, TX............................ Apron rehab, runway improvements & taxiway extension
Abrams Municipal Airport, MI................... Parallel taxiway & runway extension
Akutan Airport, AK............................. Access road
Albertus Airport, IL........................... Runway & taxiway rehabilitation
Anchorage International Airport, AK............ North/South runway expansion and maintenance facility
Andrews-Murphy Airport, NC..................... Land acquisition & extension of runway
Ankeny Regional Airport, IA.................... Taxiways & access road improvements
Atka Airport, AK............................... Runway extension
Baltimore-Washington International, MD......... Expansion & rehabilitation airfield, taxiways & ramps
Barbour County Regional Airport, WV............ Various improvements
Bartlesville Municipal Airport, OK............. Runway safety improvements
Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport, LA........... Apron improvements, master plan, noise mitigation, reconstruct
runway
Baxter County Regional Airport, AR............. Various improvements
Benedum Airport, WV............................ Various improvements
Bennington Airport, VT......................... Runway extension
Bert Mooney Airport, MT........................ Reconstruct ramp
Bismarck Municipal Airport, ND................. Comprehensive terminal improvement
Bowling Green-Warren County, KY................ Land acquisition
Bowman Field, KY............................... Air ambulance facility
Braxton County Airport, WV..................... Various improvements
Buffalo Niagara International Airport, NY...... Runway improvements & land acquisition
Burlington Municipal Airport, IA............... Taxiway relocation
Cambridge Municipal Airport, OH................ Land acquisition, runway construction, taxiway improvements
Cartersville Airport, GA....................... Runway & taxiway lighted signage
Central Illinois Regional, IL.................. Purchase equipment
Centre Municipal Airport, AL................... Runway extension
Charleston International Airport, SC........... Various improvements
Clarion County Airport, PA..................... Runway extension
Clayton County-Tara Field, GA.................. Land acquisition & runway rehabilitation
Clayton Municipal Airport, AL.................. Runway extension
Clinton Municipal Airport, IA.................. Rehab. & resurface runway & taxiway
Columbia County Airport, NY.................... Rehabilitation of access road & taxiway
Concord Regional Airport, NC................... Runway extension
Connellsville Airport, PA...................... Runway expansion
Council Bluffs Municipal Airport, IA........... Various improvements
Dane County Regional Airport, WI............... Apron reconstruction & drainage system
Davis Airport, WV.............................. Various improvements
DeKalb-Peachtree Airport, GA................... Airport expansion & noise control
Denver International, CO....................... Construct new runway
Des Moines International Airport, IA........... Various improvements
Detroit Metro Airport, MI...................... Terminal redevelopment/rehabilitation
Dona Ana County Airport, NM.................... Widening & strengthening of runway & taxiway
Double Eagle II Airport, NM.................... Runway rehabilitation and runway equipment
Eastern Iowa Airport, IA....................... Taxiway & apron reconstruction
Eastern West Virginia Regional/Shephard Field, Various improvements
WV.
Eau Claire-Chippewa Valley Airport, WI......... Runway improvements
Elkins-Randolph County-Jennings Randolph Field, Various improvements
WV.
Erie International Airport, PA................. Runway extension
Fairfield Municipal Airport, IA................ Construct new runway
Fairmont Municipal Airport, WV................. Various improvements
Fayette Airport, WV............................ Various improvements
Floyd Bennett Memorial Airport, NY............. Rehabilitation of taxiways
Ford Airport, MI............................... Runway reconstruction, tiedown rehab & apron rehab
Fork-Quillayute, WA............................ Master plan improvements
Galveston-Scholes Field, TX.................... Taxiway reconstruction, apron rehab. & main runway overlay
Gary/Chicago Airport, IN....................... Expansion of general use apron
General Mitchell Field, WI..................... Taxiway relocation & expansion
Girdwood Airport, AK........................... Miscellaneous improvements
Glynco Jetport, GA............................. Terminal renovation
Gogebic County Airport, MI..................... Land acquisition
Grand Forks International Airport, ND.......... Construct runway
Grant County Airport, WV....................... Various improvements
Great Falls International, MT.................. Upgrade runways to cat IIIc status
Greater Rochester International, NY............ Terminal improvements, construct taxiway, & runway improvements
Greenbrier Valley, WV.......................... Various improvements
Gulfport-Biloxi Regional Airport, MS........... Land acquisition for runway extension
Hector International Airport, ND............... Runway extension, taxiway reconstruction & construct taxiway
Helena Regional Airport, MT.................... Terminal remodeling & expansion project
Houghton County Memorial Airport, MI........... Runway rehabilitation
Huntsville International Airport, AL........... Miscellaneous improvements
Indiana County Airport, PA..................... Runway extension
Indianapolis International Airport, IN......... Various improvements
Iowa City Municipal Airport, IA................ Land acquisition
Ivanof Bay Airport, AK......................... Runway extension
Jackson County Airport, WV..................... Various improvements
Jackson International Airport, MS.............. Cargo apron improvements & related projects
Jonesboro Municipal Airport, AR................ Runway extension
Juneau International Airport, AK............... Snow removal maintenance facility
Kee Field, WV.................................. Various improvements
Kodiak Airport, AK............................. Passenger terminal
LaCrosse Municipal Airport, WI................. Runway & taxiway reconstruction
Lafayette Regional Airport, LA................. Various improvements
Lake Placid Airport, NY........................ Rehabilitation of taxiway
Lambert-St. Louis International, MO............ Noise mitigation
Lancaster Airport, PA.......................... Runway extension
Lee Gilmer Memorial Airport, GA................ Construct new taxiways
Logan County Airport, WV....................... Various improvements
Louisville International, KY................... Reconstruction of taxiway, land acquisition & noise reduction
Madisonville Municipal, KY..................... Extension project
Manhattan Regional Airport, KS................. Aircraft parking expansion project
Marlinton Airport, WV.......................... Various improvements
Marshall County Airport, WV.................... Various improvements
Mason County Airport, WV....................... Various improvements
McComas-Lee's Summit Municipal, MO............. Runway improvement, land acquisition, hangar removal
McComb-Pike County Airport, MS................. Lengthen runway & install taxiway
Memphis International Airport, TN.............. Taxiway extension
Mercer County Airport, WV...................... Various improvements
Mid-Delta Regional Airport, MS................. Runway repaving
Middle Georgia Regional Airport, GA............ Runway extension
Mingo County Airport, WV....................... Various improvements
Minot International Airport, ND................ Runway reconstruction
Missoula International Airport, MT............. Land acquisition & runway relocation
Monroe County Airport, AL...................... Various improvements
Monroe Regional Airport, LA.................... Terminal & infrastructure improvements
Montgomery Regional Airport (Dannelly Field), Terminal reconstruction (phase II)
AL.
Morehead-Rowan County, KY...................... New airport
Morey Airport, WI.............................. Land acquisition
Morgantown Municipal-Walter L. Bill Hart Field, Various improvements
WV.
Mt. Vernon Airport, IL......................... Runway rehabilitation & land acquisition
New Orleans International Airport, LA.......... Runway improvements & safety enhancements
Oakland-Pontiac Airport, MI.................... Land acquisition for noise reduction
Ogden-Hinckley Airport, UT..................... Runway, taxi lane, and ramp improvements
Olive Branch Airport, MS....................... Extend runway & construct new ramp
Orlando International Airport, FL.............. Runway improvements
Otsego County Airport, MI...................... Runway reconstruction
Outagamie County Regional Airport, WI.......... Taxiway, apron, & lighting improvements
Owensboro-Daviess County, KY................... Runway extension
Panama City-Bay County Airport, FL............. Various improvements
Pellston Regional Airport, MI.................. Terminal construction & road relocation
Petersburg Airport, AK......................... Runway extension
Philadelphia Municipal Airport, MS............. Various improvements
Philadelphia International Airport, PA......... Runway lighting & visual navigation aids
Piedmont Triad International Airport, NC....... Construct new runway
Pittsburgh International Airport, PA........... Runway lighting & various improvements
Port Columbus International Airport, OH........ Airport renovation
Princeton-Caldwell County, KY.................. Airport expansion
Pryor Field Regional Airport (Decatur), AL..... Runway extension, apron improvements, terminal expansion
Quad City Airport, IL.......................... Taxiway extension
Raleigh County Memorial, WV.................... Various improvements
Redmond Airport, OR............................ Terminal area expansion
Reno/Stead Airport, NV......................... Runway & taxiway reconstruction, extension, & lighting
improvements
Reno/Tahoe International Airport, NV........... Ramp expansion, land acquisition, noise reduction, & various
improvements
Richard B. Russell Airport, GA................. Runway, infrastructure improvements
Richmond International Airport, VA............. Taxiway improvement
Richwood City Airport, WV...................... Various improvements
Rickenbacker International Airport, OH......... Various improvements
Ripley Airport, MS............................. Runway extension
Rock County Airport, WI........................ Runway & taxiway improvements
Ronald Reagan Washington National, VA.......... Various improvements
Saline County Airport, AR...................... Airport relocation
San Francisco International Airport, CA........ Site and engineering studies
Saratoga County Airport, NY.................... Construction of runway
Schroon Lake Airport, NY....................... Construction of apron and taxiway
Shreveport Regional Airport, LA................ Runway extension
Southcentral Alaska Float Plane Facility, AK... Master plan and preliminary engineering and design
Spencer Airport, WV............................ Various improvements
Spokane International Airport, WA.............. Various improvements
St. Paul Airport, AK........................... Runway improvements
Stanly County Airport, NC...................... Apron improvements & airport upgrades
Stennis International Airport, MS.............. Land acquisition, apron expansion, & various improvements
Stillwater Airport, OK......................... Runway & taxiway extension
Stockton Metropolitan Airport, CA.............. Various improvements
Sullivan County International Airport, NY...... Construction of apron & taxiway
Summersville Airport, WV....................... Various improvements
Ticonderoga Municipal Airport, NY.............. Reconstruction of runway
Toledo Express Airport, OH..................... Airport expansion & cargo parking apron
Tri-State/Walker-Long Field, WV................ Various improvements
Troy Municipal Airport, AL..................... Security and safety improvements
Tulsa International Airport, OK................ Terminal & baggage claim improvements
Tunicia Municipal Airport, MS.................. Design, planning, & construction
Tyler Pounds Field, TX......................... Terminal (phase III) & building lighting facilities
Unalaska Airport, AK........................... Runway extension
Upper Cumberland Regional Airport, TN.......... Apron expansion
Upshur County Regional Airport, WV............. Runway extension
Valley International Airport, TX............... Land acquisition, road relocation
Washington Dulles International, VA............ Various improvements
Waynesboro Municipal Airport, MS............... Runway extension
Welch Municipal Airport, WV.................... Various improvements
Westchester County Airport, NY................. Design & construction of deicing facility
Wheeling-Ohio County Airport, WV............... Various improvements
Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International Airport, PA Various improvements
William B Hartsfield-Atlanta International, GA. Runway extension
Williamsport Airport, PA....................... Runway extension
Wilmington International Airport, NC........... Land acquisition for runway & taxiway widening
Winfield Airport, WV........................... Various improvements
Wittman Field, WI.............................. Land acquisition
Wood County/Gill Robb Wilson Field, WV......... Various improvements
Yeager Airport, WV............................. Various improvements
Zanesville Municipal Airport, OH............... Runway resurfacing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indianapolis International Airport, IN.--The Committee
commends the FAA for technical assistance provided in the
development of the mid-field terminal project at Indianapolis
International Airport. The Committee urges the FAA to give full
and fair consideration to requests for discretionary funding
for the construction of the new passenger terminal complex,
including taxiways, air traffic control tower, aprons, and
associated lighting, marking and drainage improvements to
support the relocated terminal complex.
Charleston International Airport, SC.--The Committee urges
the FAA to give full and fair consideration to requests for
discretionary funding for the expansion of vehicle parking
capacity at the airport. Continued expansion of the existing
flat lot will result in unreasonable walking distances for
passengers; therefore, a vertical deck is required.
Noise mitigation.--The Committee is aware of the recent
agreement between the FAA, the Port of Seattle, the Highline
School District and the State of Washington to fund and
undertake noise mitigation activities and improvements to 15
schools in the Highline School District. Given the longstanding
need to address the negative impact of noise on children in the
Highline school system, the Committee commends FAA's critical
role in helping all parties reach this agreement and expects
the FAA to expeditiously commit funds and assistance to this
effort.

LETTERS OF INTENT

Congress authorized FAA to use letters of intent [LOI's] to
fund multiyear airport improvement projects that will
significantly enhance systemwide airport capacity. FAA is also
to consider a project's benefits and costs in determining
whether to approve it for AIP funding. FAA adopted a policy of
committing to LOI's no more than about 50 percent of forecasted
discretionary funds allocated for capacity, safety, security,
and noise projects. The Committee viewed this policy as
reasonable because it gave FAA the flexibility to fund other
worthy projects that do not fall under a LOI. Both FAA and
airport authorities have found letters of intent helpful in
planning and funding airport development.
Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport.--Hartsfield
Atlanta International Airport is undertaking the construction
of a critical 5th runway in order to relieve congestion at the
world's busiest airport which is expected to experience a 28
percent growth rate in the next 10 years. According to the
recently released FAA Airport Capacity Benchmark Report,
Hartsfield exceeds its capacity for more than eight hours a day
during bad weather. The new runway will increase capacity by 58
(37 percent) additional operations in good weather and 45 (34
percent) additional operations in bad weather. At a cost of
more than $1,000,000,000, the Hartsfield 5th runway is one of
the most expensive runways in the nation since the additional
runway must cross an interstate. Local officials are carrying
over 80 percent of the cost and are seeking a $171,000,000
Letter of Intent (LOI) over 10 years from the Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) funds to cover the cost of this
critical capacity project. Therefore, the Committee strongly
recommends that the FAA give priority consideration to this
important funding request.
Piedmont Triad International Airport (Greensboro, High
Point, Winston-Salem, North Carolina).--The Committee
encourages the FAA to give full and immediate consideration to
the Piedmont Triad Airport Authority's application for a Letter
of Intent for construction of a parallel runway (5L-23R), and
related improvements described in the Authority's application
which are necessary to integrate this new runway into existing
facilities. The Committee is informed that substantial safety,
capacity and economic benefits will accrue from the completion
of this project.

ADMINISTRATION

The bill provides that, within the overall obligation
limitation, $64,957,000 is available for administration of the
airports program by the FAA and airport technology research.
The Committee recommendation includes $7,547,000 for
Airport Technology Research. The program is included in AIP for
fiscal year 2002 as the research directly supports improvements
in airport safety, capacity, and efficiency. The research is
directed at mitigation of wildlife strike hazards to aircraft,
improvement of airport rescue and firefighting, improvement of
airport lighting and marking, reduction in runway incursions,
and improvement in airport pavement and design. It also
includes funding for the 18 FTE in the Airport Technology
Branch at the William J. Hughes Technical Center and continued
operation of the pavement test facility at the Technical
Center.

Small Community Air Service Development Pilot Program

Appropriations, 2001....................................................
Budget estimate, 2002...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ \1\ $20,000,000

\1\ Funded within the Federal Aviation Administration.

The Committee bill includes $20,000,000 for the Small
Community Air Service Development Pilot Program authorized by
section 203 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and
Reform Act for the 21st Century. The program is designed to
improve air service to underutilized airports in small and
rural communities. The total number of communities or groups of
communities that can participate in the program is limited to
no more than 4 from any one State and no more than 40 overall.
The program gives priority to communities that have high air
fares, will contribute a local share of the cost, will
establish a public-private partnership to facilitate airline
service, and where assistance will provide benefits to a broad
segment of the traveling public.

general provisions

Second career training program.--The Committee has included
bill language which was included in the President's budget
request which prohibits the use of appropriated funds for the
second career training program. This prohibition has been
carried in annual appropriations acts for many years.
Sunday premium pay.--The bill retains a provision, first
included in the fiscal year 1995 appropriations bill, which
prohibits FAA from paying Sunday premium pay, except in those
cases where the individual actually worked on a Sunday. This
provision is identical to that which was in effect for fiscal
years 1995-2000. It was requested by the administration for
fiscal year 2002.
Manned auxiliary flight service stations.--The Committee
has retained bill language which was requested by the
administration to prohibit the use of funds for operating a
manned auxiliary flight service station in the contiguous
United States. There is no funding provided in the
``Operations'' account for such stations in fiscal year 2002.
Facilitating Environmental Reviews to Increase Airport
Capacity.--The bill authorizes the Federal Aviation
Administration (sec. 335) to use funds from airport sponsors,
including the airport's ``Grants-in-Aid for Airports''
entitlement funds, for the hiring of additional staff or for
obtaining services of consultants for the purpose of
facilitating environmental activities related to airport
projects that add critical airport capacity to the national air
transportation system.
FAA Facilities on Airport Property.--The bill includes a
provision (sec. 340) that prohibits funds in this Act to be
used to adopt guidelines or regulations requiring airport
sponsors to provide the Federal Aviation Administration
``without cost'' buildings, maintenance, or space for FAA
services. The prohibition does not apply to negotiations
between FAA and airport sponsors concerning ``below market''
rates for such services or to grant assurances that require
airport sponsors to provide land without cost to the FAA for
air traffic control facilities.
Southeast Louisiana Regional Airport.--The Committee notes
that substantial Federal investments have already been made in
the New Orleans International Airport and the Baton Rouge
Metropolitan Airport. Accordingly, the Committee has included
language (sec. 336) that would prohibit the use of funds made
available in this Act from being used to further any efforts
toward developing a new regional airport for southeast
Louisiana until a comprehensive plan is submitted by a
commission of stakeholders to the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration and that plan, as approved by the
Administrator, is submitted to and approved by both the Senate
and House Committees on Appropriations. The commission of
stakeholders is to be comprised of one representative from each
of the following entities: the Louisiana Airport Authority, the
New Orleans Aviation Board, the Greater Baton Rouge Airport
District, Orleans Parish, Jefferson Parish, St. Charles Parish,
St. John the Baptist Parish, St. James Parish, Ascension
Parish, Iberville Parish, and East Baton Rouge Parish. The
comprehensive plan shall analyze the feasibility of building a
new regional airport for southeast Louisiana. This analysis
shall consider future demand and existing capacity of the New
Orleans International Airport and the Baton Rouge Metropolitan
Airport. If a new airport is recommended, the plan shall
propose a site, estimate total project costs and benefits, and
identify funding sources with projected contribution
percentages from each source. Additionally, if a new airport is
recommended, the plan shall also analyze the impact of a new
airport on the existing New Orleans International Airport and
Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport, and identify the short and
long term roles of these existing airports and the proposed new
airport.
Mandatory separation for controllers.--The bill includes a
provision (sec. 337) that allows air traffic controllers,
covered under the Civil Service Retirement System, who reach
the age of 56 years to work until they have completed their 20
years of service. The Civil Service Retirement System allows
other groups who are covered under mandatory separation
requirements, such as firefighters and law enforcement
officers, to continue working until they have completed their
20 years of service unless the Secretary determines such action
would compromise safety. This provision targets a limited
population of air traffic control specialists that, due to
unusual circumstances, would not qualify for an annuity upon
mandatory separation from the air traffic controller
profession.

GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

(RESCISSION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

The bill includes a rescission of $301,720,000 in contract
authority. This budget authority was made available in Public
Law 106-181 for prior fiscal years. However, since such funds
were above the obligation limitation for those years, they are
not available for obligation and are therefore available for
rescission. This recommendation will have no programmatic
impact, since the funding is not currently available for use in
the AIP program.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Summary of Fiscal Year 2002 Program

The principal mission of the Federal Highway Administration
is to, in partnership with State and local governments, foster
the development of a safe, efficient, and effective highway and
intermodal system nationwide including access to and within
National Forests, National Parks, Indian Lands and other public
lands.
Under the Committee recommendations, a total program level
of $32,873,695,000 would be provided for the activities of the
Federal Highway Administration in fiscal year 2002. The
following table summarizes the fiscal year 2001 program levels,
the fiscal year 2002 program request and the Committee's
recommendations:

[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------- Committee
Program 2001 program 2002 budget recommendation
level estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-aid highways limitation \1\ \2\......................... 29,661,806 31,563,157 31,919,103
Limitation on administrative expenses \2\................... (295,119) (317,693) (316,521)
Exempt Federal-aid obligations.................................. 1,068,926 954,592 954,592
Emergency relief supplemental obligations....................... 729,452 .............. ..............
Appalachian Development Highway System.......................... 279,963 ( \3\ ) 350,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 31,730,769 32,518,157 33,224,103
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program.
\2\ Does not reflect 0.22 percent reduction in section 1403 of Public Law 106-554.
\3\ Requested within Federal-aid Highway limitation on obligations.

Limitation on Administrative Expenses

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................ $295,119,000
Budget estimate, 2002 \2\............................... 317,693,000
Committee recommendation \2\............................ 316,521,000

\1\ Does not reflect 0.22 percent reduction in section 1403 of Public
Law 106-554.
\2\ Funding for motor carrier administration expenses is included as a
separate limitation in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

The limitation on administrative expenses controls spending
for virtually all the salaries and expenses of the Federal
Highway Administration. The Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century changed the funding source for the highway
research accounts from the administrative takedown of the
Federal-Aid Highway Program to individual contract authority
provisions. The Committee recommends a limitation of
$316,521,000.
The following table reflects the fiscal year 2001 level,
the 2002 level requested by the administration, and the
Committee's recommendation:

[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
Program 2002 budget recommendation
2001 level \1\ estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses:
Salaries and benefits.................................... 210,748 222,094 221,594
Travel................................................... 9,473 9,473 9,473
Transportation........................................... 465 465 465
GSA rent................................................. 16,537 20,621 20,621
Communications, rent, and utilities...................... 9,857 9,857 9,857
Printing................................................. 1,512 1,512 1,512
TASC..................................................... 6,621 7,025 7,025
Supplies................................................. 2,000 2,000 2,000
Equipment................................................ 4,736 7,265 4,736
NDGPS.................................................... \2\ 6,000 6,000 6,000
Other.................................................... 32,521 37,381 33,238
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 294,470 317,693 316,521
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects reduction of $649,000 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106-554.
\2\ Reflects fiscal year 2001 appropriation in FAA facilities and equipment.

Administrative expenses.--The Committee recommends
$316,521,000 for this appropriation. The reduction to the
budget estimate were made for lack of adequate justification
and are made without prejudice. The Committee recommendation
for administrative expenses provides FHWA the flexibility to
allocate the appropriation among such expenses as ADP,
permanent change of station, travel, transportation, salaries
and benefits consistent with the other recommendations in the
report. The Committee notes that the on-board workforce is 200
FTE below authorized levels for fiscal year 2002 which should
provide ample flexibility to execute the program within the
appropriated level.
The Committee recommends the following items be funded
under section 104(a)(1)(A): $7,000,000 for motor carrier
research and technology to support ongoing research and
technology efforts in the areas of driver, both commercial and
non-commercial; carriers; and vehicle; $11,000,000 for the
motor carrier crash data improvement program, the commercial
driver's license program and to staff FMCSA's 24-hour toll-free
hotline for reporting safety violations. The programs were
requested under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration's limitation on administrative expenses.
Incidental Appurtenances For Recreational Vehicles.--The
Committee notes that the Federal Highway Administration issued
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (65 FR 50471) for excluding
devices from the measurement of commercial vehicle length and
width. The Committee recognizes that recreational vehicles may
have incidental appurtenances, such as retractable awnings,
which may exceed the Federal width limitation when transported
commercially from the manufacturer to the dealer or to a
recreational vehicle show. A number of States have enacted, and
more are working to enact, laws that allow incidental
appurtenances on noncommercial recreational vehicles to exceed
State width limitations. The Committee encourages the FHWA
Administrator to include in its final rule an allowance within
reasonable safety limitations for the commercial transport of
these recreational vehicles with appurtenances.
Child passenger protection education grants.--The Committee
recommendation includes $7,500,000 to continue providing
grants, as authorized under section 2003(b) of TEA21, that
train safety professionals on all aspects of proper child
restraint use and educate the public on the installation,
selection, and placement of child safety seats. The Committee
commends NHTSA and its private sector partners for the progress
made in training child passenger safety technicians and the
local law enforcement and fire and rescue departments in
jurisdictions throughout the Nation that have embraced this
training to prevent children from sustaining serious injuries
or death in motor vehicle crashes that could be avoided with
the correct use of safety seats and seat belts.

Federal-Aid Highways

(limitation on obligations)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2001 \1\

$29,661,806,000

Budget estimate, 2002

31,563,157,000

Committee recommendation

31,919,103,000

\1\ Does not reflect 0.22 percent reduction in section 1403 of Public
Law 106-554.

The accompanying bill includes language limiting fiscal
year 2002 Federal-aid highways obligations to $31,919,103,000,
an increase of $2,257,297,000 over the fiscal year 2001 enacted
level and $355,946,000 over the budget request.
The obligation limitation for the Federal-aid highways
program included in this bill includes $4,543,000,000 in
obligations resulting from revenue aligned budget authority.
TEA21 provides for an automatic increase in the Federal-aid
highways program budget authority and obligation authority in
any budget year in which projected income to the highway
account of the highway trust fund exceeds estimates of income
to the trust fund that were made at the time TEA21 was enacted.
Under law, a determination of the size of this increase in so-
called ``firewall'' spending levels is made in the President's
budget submission. TEA21 calls for any such increases in budget
authority to be distributed proportionately among Federal-aid
highways apportioned and allocated programs, and for the
overall Federal-aid obligation limitation to be increased by an
equal amount, and certain amounts to be distributed to the
motor carrier safety grants program of the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration.
The budget request proposes to allocate most of this
additional obligation authority in fiscal year 2002 as
prescribed in TEA21. However, under the budget request
$45,000,000 would be for a pilot program that promotes
innovative transportation solutions for people with
disabilities, $100,000,000 would be available for a matching
grant program to promote access to alternative methods of
transportation, and $56,300,000 would be for infrastructure
improvements and new construction of State border inspection
facilities. As structured in the budget request, the funding
for these three new initiatives serves to divert funds that the
States would otherwise receive for their highway construction
program.
The Committee bill takes an alternative approach in funding
the Federal Aid Highway program. Rather than allow the
Administration's new initiatives to divert funds from critical
construction projects, the Committee bill funds these
initiatives while simultaneously increasing the overall highway
obligation ceiling to a level that exceeds the President's
request by more than $350,000,000 and exceeds the TEA21
``guarantee'' level by more than $200,000,000. In so doing, the
Committee has ensured that the inclusion of funding for the
Administration's new initiatives does not cause any State to
receive less funding than it would receive under TEA21. The
following table shows the distribution of highway funds
apportioned to the States under three scenarios: the
President's budget, the TEA21 ``guarantee'' level, and the
Committee bill.

ESTIMATED FISCAL YEAR 2002 DISTRIBUTIONS OF OBLIGATION AUTHORITY INCLUDING REVENUE ALIGNED BUDGET AUTHORITY
(RABA)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE
STATES BUDGET TEA21 RECOMMENDATION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA...................................................... $566,511,257 $574,827,776 $577,421,616
ALASKA....................................................... 324,269,096 328,940,873 330,068,374
ARIZONA...................................................... 476,186,349 483,272,351 485,296,910
ARKANSAS..................................................... 369,931,009 375,335,782 377,007,862
CALIFORNIA................................................... 2,575,356,363 2,613,436,166 2,625,371,789
COLORADO..................................................... 331,829,877 336,803,854 338,367,119
CONNECTICUT.................................................. 418,735,856 424,857,291 426,604,579
DELAWARE..................................................... 123,731,983 125,597,446 126,156,512
DIST. OF COL................................................. 111,232,620 112,905,811 113,461,761
FLORIDA...................................................... 1,315,964,047 1,335,314,821 1,340,727,168
GEORGIA...................................................... 993,260,885 1,007,842,452 1,012,084,040
HAWAII....................................................... 143,636,258 145,749,736 146,396,732
IDAHO........................................................ 213,144,293 216,207,782 217,132,444
ILLINOIS..................................................... 940,718,957 954,584,798 958,973,791
INDIANA...................................................... 684,089,673 694,124,843 697,056,932
IOWA......................................................... 335,934,637 340,935,302 342,544,279
KANSAS....................................................... 327,546,106 332,420,255 333,998,171
KENTUCKY..................................................... 502,204,627 509,616,053 511,902,994
LOUISIANA.................................................... 452,090,581 458,744,179 460,828,129
MAINE........................................................ 148,115,406 150,296,194 150,965,783
MARYLAND..................................................... 450,456,522 457,141,037 459,221,107
MASSACHUSETTS................................................ 521,389,676 529,010,797 531,382,806
MICHIGAN..................................................... 897,902,206 911,099,796 915,086,478
MINNESOTA.................................................... 416,823,370 422,952,733 424,903,997
MISSISSIPPI.................................................. 359,469,679 364,785,349 366,433,631
MISSOURI..................................................... 674,762,726 684,712,687 687,857,328
MONTANA...................................................... 274,978,039 279,067,519 280,191,315
NEBRASKA..................................................... 218,374,158 221,682,069 222,730,540
NEVADA....................................................... 201,004,225 203,981,546 204,845,632
NEW HAMPSHIRE................................................ 143,859,654 145,954,414 146,607,934
NEW JERSEY................................................... 744,416,758 755,388,010 758,848,367
NEW MEXICO................................................... 274,300,109 278,349,735 279,567,454
NEW YORK..................................................... 1,431,997,998 1,452,991,989 1,459,524,558
NORTH CAROLINA............................................... 784,611,105 796,163,503 799,597,222
NORTH DAKOTA................................................. 183,292,508 186,051,055 186,888,899
OHIO......................................................... 953,452,799 967,530,840 971,945,447
OKLAHOMA..................................................... 431,826,535 438,264,878 440,305,534
OREGON....................................................... 343,975,034 348,986,794 350,610,314
PENNSYLVANIA................................................. 1,402,932,188 1,423,214,880 1,429,841,991
RHODE ISLAND................................................. 166,909,740 169,397,262 170,141,877
SOUTH CAROLINA............................................... 471,171,962 478,115,699 480,130,208
SOUTH DAKOTA................................................. 202,904,761 205,868,131 206,798,300
TENNESSEE.................................................... 642,143,249 651,607,025 654,553,557
TEXAS........................................................ 2,129,063,307 2,160,512,571 2,169,688,601
UTAH......................................................... 218,330,009 221,562,282 222,596,372
VERMONT...................................................... 127,800,270 129,716,683 130,304,157
VIRGINIA..................................................... 721,735,421 732,406,462 735,639,679
WASHINGTON................................................... 498,001,860 505,357,221 507,717,553
WEST VIRGINIA................................................ 315,004,203 319,563,087 321,079,763
WISCONSIN.................................................... 551,294,746 559,402,290 561,790,930
WYOMING...................................................... 195,809,021 198,756,810 199,678,939
--------------------------------------------------
TOTAL.................................................. 28,304,483,718 28,721,408,919 28,848,877,475
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS PROGRAMS

The roads and bridges that make up our nation's highway
infrastructure are built, operated, and maintained through the
joint efforts of Federal, State, and local governments. States
have much flexibility to use Federal-aid highway funds to best
meet their individual needs and priorities, with FHWA's
assistance and oversight.
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21),
the highway, highway safety, and transit authorization through
fiscal year 2003 makes funds available in the following major
categories:
National highway system.--The Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 authorized the
National Highway System (NHS), which was subsequently
established as a 163,000-mile road system by the National
Highway System Designation Act of 1995. This system serves
major population centers, intermodal transportation facilities,
international border crossings, and major destinations. It is
comprised of all interstate routes, selected urban and
principal rural arterials, defense highways, and major highway
connectors carrying up to 76 percent of commercial truck
traffic and 44 percent of all vehicle traffic. A State may
transfer up to half of its NHS funds to the Surface
Transportation program (STP) and all NHS funds with the
concurrence of the Secretary of Transportation. The Federal
share of the NHS is an 80 percent match and funds remain
available for 4 fiscal years.
Interstate maintenance.--The 46,567-mile Dwight D.
Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways
retains a separate identity within the NHS. This program
finances projects to rehabilitate, restore, resurface and
reconstruct the Interstate system. Reconstruction of bridges,
interchanges, and over-crossings along existing interstate
routes is also an eligible activity if it does not add capacity
other than high occupancy vehicle (HOV) and auxiliary lanes.
All remaining Federal funding to complete the initial
construction of the interstate system has been provided through
previous highway legislation. The TEA21 provides flexibility to
States in fully utilizing remaining unobligated balances of
prior Interstate Construction authorizations. States with no
remaining work to complete the Interstate System may transfer
any surplus Interstate Construction funds to their Interstate
Maintenance program. States with remaining completion work on
Interstate gaps or open-to-traffic segments may relinquish
Interstate Construction fund eligibility for the work and
transfer the Federal share of the cost to their Interstate
Maintenance program.
Funds provided for the Interstate maintenance discretionary
program in fiscal year 2002 shall be available for the
following activities in the corresponding amounts:

Project Amount

Brent Spence Bridge replacement I-75/I-71, Kentucky..... $2,000,000
I-15 reconstruction, Utah............................... 10,000,000
I-25 Broadway & Alameda Interchanges, Colorado.......... 6,000,000
I-44 Fenton industrial corridor improvements in St.
Louis County, Missouri.............................. 5,000,000
I-470 reconstruction and removal of bridges, Missouri... 8,000,000
I-65 & Valley Dale Road interchange, Alabama............ 10,000,000
I-70 improvements from CBD to northside, Missouri....... 5,000,000
I-70/MD85/MD355 intersection reconstruction, Maryland... 12,000,000
I-79 Bridgeport to Meadowbrook Road, Harrison County,
West Virginia....................................... 12,000,000
I-80 widening & reconstruction in Johnson County, Iowa.. 8,129,000
I-81 South Martinsburg I/C Bridge, Berkeley County, West
Virginia............................................ 8,000,000
I-95 Northern Maine..................................... 6,000,000
Pearl River Bridge--I-55 Connector, Mississippi......... 11,000,000
Woodall Rodgers Extension Bridge, Texas................. 10,000,000

Surface transportation program.--The surface transportation
program (STP) is a very flexible program that may be used by
the states and localities for any roads (including NHS) that
are not functionally classified as local or rural minor
collectors. These roads are collectively referred to as
Federal-aid highways. Bridge projects paid with STP funds are
not restricted to Federal-aid highways but may be on any public
road. Transit capital projects are also eligible under this
program. The total funding for the STP may be augmented by the
transfer of funds from other programs and by minimum guarantee
funds under TEA21 which may be used as if they were STP funds.
Once distributed to the states, STP funds must be used
according to the following percentages: 10 percent for safety
construction; 10 percent for transportation enhancement; 50
percent divided among areas of over 200,000 population and
remaining areas of the State; and, 30 percent for any area of
the state. Areas of 5,000 population or less are guaranteed an
amount based on previous funding, and 15 percent of the amounts
reserved for these areas may be spent on rural minor
collectors. The Federal share for the STP program is 80 percent
with a 4-year availability period.
Bridge replacement and rehabilitation program.--This
program is continued by the TEA21 to provide assistance for
bridges on public roads, including a discretionary set-aside
for high cost bridges and for the seismic retrofit of bridges.
Fifty percent of a state's bridge funds may be transferred to
the NHS or the STP, but the amount of any such transfer is
deducted from the national bridge needs used in the program's
apportionment formula for the following year.
At least 15 percent, but not more than 35 percent, of a
State's apportioned bridge funds must be spent on bridges not
on the Federal-aid system.
Funds provided for the bridge discretionary program in
fiscal year 2002 shall be available for the following
activities in the corresponding amounts:

Project Amount

Antelope Valley Overpass Bridge, Nebraska............... $1,000,000
Avis Overhead Bridge WV107, West Virginia............... 6,183,000
Cooper River Bridge, South Carolina..................... 15,000,000
Covered Bridges, Section 1224 of TEA21.................. 10,000,000
Golden Gate Bridge seismic retrofit program, California. 3,500,000
Hoan Bridge rehabilitation, Wisconsin................... 15,000,000
Hood Canal Bridge replacement, Washington............... 5,967,000
I-195 Washington Bridge, Rhode Island................... 5,000,000
Missisquoi Bay Bridge, Vermont.......................... 5,000,000
James Rumsey Bridge WV480, West Virginia................ 11,680,000
Lafourche Parish-Leeville Bridge, Louisiana............. 3,000,000
Metro Parks Zoo Historic Bridge replacement, Ohio....... 2,000,000
Missouri River Bridge approach from Route 74, Missouri.. 1,300,000
Route 13 Bridge between Route 10 & Ray County, Missouri. 2,000,000
Sand Island Bridge resurfacing, Hawaii.................. 5,000,000
SR-240 Yakima Bridge replacement, Washington............ 5,000,000
US-81 Missouri River Bridge PE, South Dakota............ 1,000,000
Wacker Drive Disc Bridge reconstruction, Illinois....... 8,000,000
Waldo-Hancock Suspension Bridge replacement, Maine...... 7,000,000

National Historic Covered Bridge Preservation Program.--The
Committee recommendation provides $10,000,000 for the covered
bridge program within the funds made available for the
discretionary bridge program.
Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement
program.--This program provides funds to States to improve air
quality in non-attainment and maintenance areas. A wide range
of transportation activities are eligible, as long as DOT,
after consultation with EPA, determines they are likely to help
meet national ambient air quality standards. TEA21 provides
greater flexibility to engage public-private partnerships, and
expands and clarifies eligibilities to include programs to
reduce extreme cold starts, maintenance areas, and particulate
matter (PM-10) nonattainment and maintenance areas. If a State
has no non-attainment or maintenance areas, the funds may be
used as if they were STP funds.
On-road and off-road demonstration projects may be
appropriate candidates for funding under the CMAQ program. Both
sectors are critical for satisfying the purposes of the CMAQ
program, including regional emissions and verifying new mobile
source control techniques.
Federal lands highways.--This program provides
authorizations through three major categories--Indian
reservation roads, parkways and park roads, and public lands
highways (which incorporates the previous forest highways
category)--as well as a new category for Federally-owned public
roads providing access to or within the National Wildlife
Refuge System. TEA21 also establishes a new program for
improving deficient bridges on Indian reservation roads.
The Committee directs that the funds allocated for this
program in this bill and in permanent law are to be derived
from the FHWA's public lands discretionary program, and not
from funds allocated to the National Park Service's regions.
Funds provided for the Federal lands program in fiscal year
2002 shall be available for the following activities:

Project Amount

Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge access road, Utah...... $500,000
Blackstone River Bikeway, Rhode Island.................. 1,000,000
Blueberry Lake road improvements, Green Mountain
National Forest, VT................................. 750,000
Broughton Bridge over USACOE Milford Lake, Kansas....... 1,500,000
Chincoteague Wildlife Refuge access roads, Virginia..... 1,000,000
Metlakatla/Walden Point Road, AK........................ 2,000,000
City of Rocks Back Country Byway, Idaho................. 2,000,000
Clark Fork River Bridge replacement, Idaho.............. 3,000,000
Forkland Park Access Road improvements, Alabama......... 475,000
Fort Peck Lake public access road, Montana.............. 1,000,000
Glade Creek Road & Brooklyn Road, New River Gorge
National River, West Virginia....................... 3,500,000
Highway 26, Oregon...................................... 2,000,000
Hoover Bridge Bypass, Arizona........................... 8,000,000
Lewis & Clark Bicentennial Roadway project, North Dakota 1,500,000
Lewis & Clark Interpretive Center access road, Montana.. 1,200,000
Little River Bridge in Pocahontas County, WV28, West
Virginia............................................ 800,000
Shotgun Cove Road, Alaska............................... 650,000
Ramport Road, Alaska.................................... 500,000
Little River Canyon National Reserve Road Improvements,
Alabama............................................. 500,000
Marshall County #10 & BIA #15 through Sica Hollow State
Park, South Dakota.................................. 500,000
Mat-Su Borough/Wasilla, Alaska.......................... 500,000
Miller Creek Road preliminary design & EIA, Montana..... 5,000,000
Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge and parking.... 850,000
New Bedford Whaling National Historic Park Sign project,
Massachusetts....................................... 500,000
New Highway from North Dakota to Idaho, Montana......... 1,000,000
Noxubee River Bridge replacement & access route,
Mississippi......................................... 1,300,000
Route 4 Jemez Pueblo Bypass, New Mexico................. 1,000,000
Sand Point Road Improvement, Alaska..................... 1,500,000
SD-63 Corson County reconstruction, South Dakota........ 5,000,000
SH-149 Rio Grande National Forest resurfacing, Colorado. 3,500,000
Statewide Improvements, Hawaii.......................... 6,000,000
US-3 & Acadia National Park Road improvement, Maine..... 1,000,000
US-30 Morrison/Whiteside county expansion, Illinois..... 1,000,000
USA-95 Laughlin cut-off to RR Pass widening, Nevada..... 9,000,000
Wind Cave National Park Highway resurfacing, South
Dakota.............................................. 1,500,000
Clark's River National Wildlife, Kentucky............... 2,200,000
Wood River Road upgrades, Alaska........................ 800,000
Yellowstone & Missouri Rivers, & Fort Union Trading Post
Bike Trail, North Dakota............................ 500,000

Revenue Aligned Budget Authority.--TEA21 provides that
guaranteed funding levels for the Federal-aid highways and
highway safety programs are adjusted to reflect revised receipt
estimates for the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund. In
conjunction with this adjustment, section 110 of Title 23,
entitled Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA), authorizes
contract authority in an amount equal to the additional
obligation limitation. This follows through on the TEA21
philosophy that highway program funding levels are linked to
receipts to the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund.
In fiscal year 2002, the RABA adjustment is $4,543,000,000.
The budget request proposes to reallocate and set-aside
$145,000,000 for the New Freedom initiative and $56,300,000 to
support State border infrastructure construction.
The Committee allocation increases the Federal highway
obligation limitation above the President's budget estimate by
$355,946,000. This was done so the Committee allocation could
fund the New Freedom initiative and the additional border
infrastructure investments articulated in the budget estimate
while still providing for all States to receive more under the
Committee recommendation than under the budget estimate or
under the TEA21 distribution.
Minimum guarantee.--Under TEA21, after the computation of
funds for major Federal-aid programs, additional funds are
distributed to ensure that each State receives an additional
amount based on equity considerations. This minimum guarantee
provision ensures that each State will have a return of 90.5
percent on its share of contributions to the highway account of
the Highway Trust Fund. To achieve the minimum guarantee each
fiscal year, $2,800,000,000 nationally is available to the
States as though they are STP funds (except that requirements
related to set-asides for transportation enhancements, safety,
and sub-State allocations do not apply), and any remaining
amounts are distributed among core highway programs.
Emergency relief.--This program provides for the repair and
reconstruction of Federal-aid highways and Federally-owned
roads which have suffered serious damage as the result of
natural disasters or catastrophic failures. TEA21 restates the
program eligibility specifying that emergency relief (ER) funds
can be used only for emergency repairs to restore essential
highway traffic, to minimize the extent of damage resulting
from a natural disaster or catastrophic failure, or to protect
the remaining facility and make permanent repairs. If ER funds
are exhausted, the Secretary of Transportation may borrow funds
from other highway programs.
Emergency Relief Highways.--The Committee is aware that,
under the Federal-aid Highway Program, the Emergency Relief
Program will be replenished with $100,000,000 on October 1,
2001. This replenishment will take place whether or not the
Transportation Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2002 is
enacted by that date. The Committee directs the Federal Highway
Administrator to be especially attentive to the timely
processing of applications stemming from recent Federal
disasters including recent floods in Southern West Virginia.
High priority projects.--TEA21 includes 1,850 high priority
projects specified by the Congress. Funding for these projects
totals $9,500,000,000 over the 6 year period with a specified
percentage of the project funds made available each year.
Unlike demonstration projects in the past, the funds for TEA21
high priority projects are subject to the Federal-aid
obligation limitation, but the obligation limitation associated
with the projects does not expire.
National corridor planning and border infrastructure
programs.--TEA21 created a national corridor planning and
development program that identifies funds for planning, design,
and construction of highway corridors of national significance,
economic growth, and international or interregional trade.
Allocations may be made to corridors identified in section
1105(c) of ISTEA and to other corridors using considerations
outlined in legislation. The coordinated border infrastructure
program is established to improve the safe movement of people
and goods at or across the U.S./Mexico and U.S/Canada borders.

Project Amount

Alameda corridor east construction project, California.. $5,000,000
Border Inspection Stations.............................. 56,300,000
Coalfields Expressway, West Virginia.................... 16,000,000
Cross-Harbor Freight Tunnel EIS, New York............... 5,000,000
East-West Highway, Maine................................ 5,000,000
Everett Development, 41st Street Overpass project,
Washington.......................................... 1,500,000
FAST Corridor, Tacoma to Everett, Washington............ 20,000,000
Highway 20 Freeport bypass review, design, &
engineering, Illinois............................... 1,100,000
Highway 61, Ave. of the Saints interchange, Moscow
Mills, Missouri..................................... 3,000,000
I-29 construction from Exit 81 North to South of I-90 at
Sioux Falls, South Dakota........................... 14,000,000
I-49 South from Lafayette east to Westbank, Louisiana... 17,181,000
I-5 Trade Corridor, Oregon.............................. 6,000,000
I-69 Great River Bridge, Arkansas....................... 10,000,000
I-69 construction Odom Road to I-55, Mississippi........ 12,000,000
I-69 corridor, Louisiana................................ 12,000,000
I-69 Evansville to Indianapolis, Indiana................ 5,000,000
I-85 extension to I-59/20, Alabama...................... 5,000,000
I-90/94 new by-pass to Highway 3 EIS, Montana........... 5,000,000
I-905 Otay Mesa Border Port of Entry, California........ 10,000,000
King Coal Highway, West Virginia........................ 20,000,000
North/South transitway Charlotte/Mecklenburg, North
Carolina............................................ 5,000,000
Northern Border Cascadia Program of Projects, Washington 3,500,000
Route 10, West Virginia................................. 15,000,000
Route 71 McDonald County, Missouri...................... 8,000,000
SR-67 between I-110 & US-49, Mississippi................ 12,000,000
State border safety inspection facilities, Texas........ 15,000,000
Tuscaloosa Eastern Bypass from I-59 to Rice Mine Road,
Ala-
bama................................................ 20,000,000
US-15 expansion from Pennsylvania to Presho, New York... 4,000,000
US-151 expansion Dickeyville & Dodgeville, Wisconsin.... 6,000,000
US-2 planning & construction, New Hampshire............. 1,500,000
US-278 Beaufort County widening project, South Carolina. 6,000,000
US-395 North Spokane Corridor, Washington............... 7,000,000
US-49--I-55 flyover, Mississippi........................ 3,000,000
US-63 improvements for Corridor 39, Arkansas............ 18,000,000
US-64/87 Ports-to-Plains corridor study, New Mexico..... 1,000,000
US-95 improvements Milepost 522 to Canadian boarder,
Idaho............................................... 12,600,000
Yakima Grade Separation Program of Projects, Washington. 4,000,000

Ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities.--Section 1207 of
TEA21 reauthorized funding for the construction of ferry boats
and ferry terminal facilities.
Funds provided for the Ferry boats and ferry terminal
facilities program under the Committee recommendation shall be
available for the following activities in the corresponding
amounts:
Project Amount

Bainbridge-Seattle Ferry, dolphin replacement project,
Washing-
ton................................................. $4,000,000
Baylink Ferry intermodal center, California............. 2,000,000
City of Brewer, Maine................................... 1,000,000
Cleveland Trans-Erie Ferry Service, Ohio................ 800,000
Fishers Island Ferry District, Connecticut.............. 1,000,000
Hatteras Inlet Ferry between Ocracoke Island & Outer
Banks, North Carolina............................... 1,500,000
High Speed Ferry & facility, New Bedford & Martha's
Vineyard, Massachusetts............................. 1,500,000
Inter-Island Ferry Authority, Coffman Cove, Alaska...... 3,000,000
Jersey City Pier redevelopment & terminal construction,
New Jersey.......................................... 2,000,000
Kings Point Ferry, Mississippi.......................... 500,000
North Carolina State Ferry, North Carolina.............. 689,000
Port of Rochester Harbor & Ferry Terminal improvements,
New York............................................ 3,500,000
Station Square River Landing Boat Docks, Pennsylvania... 1,000,000
TEA21 Setaside.......................................... 20,000,000
Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority Marina Ferry, Ohio... 500,000

National scenic byways program.--This program provides
funding for roads that are designated by the Secretary of
Transportation as All American Roads (AAR) or National Scenic
Byways (NSB). These roads have outstanding scenic, historic,
cultural, natural, recreational, and archaeological qualities.
The Committee recommendation provides $28,550,348 for this
program in fiscal year 2002. Funds provided for the national
scenic byways program shall be available for the following
activities in the corresponding amounts:

Project Amount

Lewis and Clark Northwest Passages--US-12 in Nez Perce
and Lewis Counties, Idaho........................... $2,000,000
Program of Projects, Washington......................... 2,683,767
Program of Projects, West Virginia...................... 6,599,062
Route 29 Scenic Byway improvements between I-295 to
Frenchtown Borough Line, New Jersey................. 4,000,000
Seward Highway Millenium Trail improvements, Alaska..... 5,000,000
Talladega Scenic Highway, Alabama....................... 5,000,000

West Virginia Program of Projects, National Scenic Byways
program.--The Committee provides $6,599,062 to the State of
West Virginia for Section 1219 National Scenic Byways program.
The Committee expects the following projects to be funded: (1)
$20,000 for Washington Heritage Trail Seed Grant; (2) $25,000
for Midland Trail CMP Implementation; (3) $87,160 for
Washington Heritage Trail Map/Guide; (4) $115,280 for West
Virginia Byways and Backways Program; (5) $19,000 for Promoting
Treasures within the Mountains II; (6) $8,000 for Little
Kanawha/Cedar Creek Brochure; (7) $204,000 for Beverly Byway
Center; (8) $99,432 for Cranberry Mountain Nature Center; (9)
$28,570 for Mountain Waters Byway Project #1; (10) $96,800 for
Little Kanawha Byway Rathbone Phase II; (11) $145,808 for
General Andrew Lewis Park; (12) $8,000 for improvements to
Virginia's Chapel; (13) $22,640 for SP Turnpike Walking Tour;
(14) $3,973,244 for Fayette Station Road Improvements; (15)
$150,128 for Fayette Station Road Interpretation; (16)
$1,596,000 for Booker T. Washington Institute.
Washington State Program of Projects, National Scenic
Byways program.--The Committee provides $2,683,767 to the State
of Washington for Section 1219 National Scenic Byways program.
The Committee expects the following projects to be funded : (1)
$790,680 for North Pend Oreille Scenic Byway--Sweet Creek Falls
interpretive trail project; (2) $112,800 to Construct Diablo
Lake Overlook Facility; (3) $88,000 for Oakcreek Wildlife Byway
interpretive site project; (4) $190,730 for Paden Creek visitor
and salmon access; (5) $1,397,557 for Northeast Peninsula
safety facility; (6) $64,000 for Byway interpretive center
Design at Federation Forest; (7) $40,000 for SR 231 Corridor
Management Plan.

Transportation and community and system preservation pilot
program.--TEA21 created a new transportation and community and
system preservation program that provides grants to States and
local governments for planning, developing, and implementing
strategies to integrate transportation and community and system
preservation plans and projects. These grants may be used to
improve the efficiency of the transportation system, reduce
transportation externalities and the need for future
infrastructure investment, and improve transportation
efficiency and access consistent with community character.
Funds provided for this program for fiscal year 2002 shall be
available for the following activities:

Project Amount

Everett Development Project, Track Replacement,
Washington.......................................... $3,700,000
Alkali Creek Bike/Pedestrian Trail, Montana............. 500,000
Buffalo City inner harbor & waterfront development, New
York................................................ 1,570,000
Casper Second Street Extension, Wyoming................. 1,000,000
Cedar Rapids Edgewood Road Project, Iowa................ 3,000,000
Charles Town Streetscape improvements & welcome center,
West Virginia....................................... 400,000
Charleston Renaissance Project, West Virginia........... 600,000
Chester Waterfront Development Streetscape, Pennsylvania 500,000
Church Street Marketplace in Burlington, Vermont........ 1,500,000
City of Elk Point bike/pedestrian trail system, South
Dakota.............................................. 200,000
City of Tea bike/pedestrian path, South Dakota.......... 50,000
Claymont Transportation Project, Delaware............... 100,000
Colombia Harden Street improvements, South Carolina..... 5,000,000
Concord 20/20 Vision Program, New Hampshire............. 500,000
Crowley Historic Parkerson Avenue redevelopment,
Louisiana........................................... 500,000
Cullman County pedestrian walkway, Alabama.............. 100,000
East Chicago Railroad Avenue Project, Indiana........... 1,000,000
Farrington safety enhancements, Hawaii.................. 2,000,000
Grand Forks Greenway trail system, North Dakota......... 1,000,000
Henderson downtown street widening, North Carolina...... 1,000,000
Henderson Riverfront Project, Kentucky.................. 1,000,000
Highway 61 from KY487 to Columbia PE/Design, Kentucky... 1,000,000
Kenai River Trail, Alaska............................... 500,000
Lewisburg Comprehensive Transportation Plan, West
Virginia............................................ 125,000
Lincoln Antelope Valley 16th Street overpass, Nebraska.. 1,600,000
Littleton Integrated & Networked Community, New
Hampshire........................................... 750,000
Littleton Main Street pedestrian improvements, New
Hampshire........................................... 2,000,000
Los Angeles county bike path, California................ 1,000,000
Macon Community Preservation, Georgia................... 200,000
Madison State Street project, Wisconsin................. 1,000,000
Maryville Downtown revitalization, Tennessee............ 4,000,000
Metrowest Community Transportation pilot project,
Massachu-
setts............................................... 500,000
Montana Highway 2 feasibility project, Montana.......... 1,000,000
Phalen Boulevard Project, St. Paul, Minnesota........... 1,600,000
Museum Campus Trolleys expanded service, Illinois....... 500,000
Mystic Streetscape Projects, Connecticut................ 1,000,000
National Underground Railroad Freedon Center, Ohio...... 3,000,000
Olympic Discovery Trail, Washington..................... 1,600,000
Palmer Railroad right-of-way, Alaska.................... 1,100,000
Payette river Greenway Project, Idaho................... 105,000
Peachtree Corridor Project, Atlanta..................... 6,000,000
Prattville-Daniel Pratt Historic District development,
Alabama............................................. 500,000
Riverwinds Project in West Deptford, New Jersey......... 500,000
Route 101 Corridor study for Amherst, Milford, & Wilton,
New Hampshire....................................... 200,000
Route 3 upgrade PE between Franklina & Boscawen, New
Hampshire........................................... 100,000
Route 79 relocation & Harbor enhancements, Massachusetts 1,000,000
Saddle Road Improvement Project, Hawaii................. 4,000,000
Satsop Development Park road improvements, Washington... 1,500,000
Springfield Center City streetscape improvements,
Missouri............................................ 1,000,000
SR-520 Coverings with Communities, Washington........... 1,000,000
St. Landry Road extension in Ascension Parish & I-10
link study, Louisiana............................... 500,000
Stockton Miracle Mile/Pacific Avenue resurfacing,
California.......................................... 1,000,000
Strong Avenue improvements & rail relocation in Rutland,
Vermont............................................. 1,500,000
Sutherland, NE viaduct to UP Tracks & US-30, Nebraska... 2,000,000
Temple Street Reopening Project, Connecticut............ 1,000,000
Trunk Highway 610/10 interchange at I-94, Minnesota..... 1,600,000
Tukwila Transit Oriented Development at Long Acres,
Washing-
ton................................................. 1,500,000
Tuscaloosa City Riverwalk & Parkway development, Alabama 1,000,000
Tuscaloosa Interdisciplinary Research Improvements,
Alabama............................................. 5,000,000
US-61 Woodville widening project, Mississippi........... 300,000
Waterford National Historic District, Virginia.......... 1,000,000

Statewide planning rules.--The Committee is concerned that
the Department has yet to issue final regulations implementing
Section 1204 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century. This section was intended to strengthen statewide
planning by ensuring that all stakeholders--in metropolitan and
non-metropolitan areas--are involved in the long-range
transportation planning process. The Committee is aware that
earlier this year the FHWA and FTA notified their field offices
that despite the fact that new planning regulations have not
been finalized, the requirements in TEA21 are in effect. The
Committee does not believe that this guidance should serve as a
substitute for the issuance of a final rule for metropolitan
and statewide planning. The Committee directs the FHWA
Administrator to submit a letter to the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees describing what actions the agency
has taken to ensure that transportation officials from rural
areas are being consulted in the long-range transportation
planning process.
Seattle, Washington.--The Federal Highway Administration is
expected to continue working with the I-90 Steering Committee
in Washington State to advance the R-8A alternative through the
environmental review process.

Appalachian Development Highway System

Appropriations, 2001.................................... $279,963,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... ( \1\ )
Committee recommendation................................ 350,000,000

\1\ The budget estimate requests funding under the Federal-Aid Highway
obligation limitation.

The Committee recommendation includes $350,000,000 for the
Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS). The amount
provided is $70,037,000 more than the fiscal year 2001
comparable level. The budget request assumes funding to be
provided for the ADHS under the Federal-aid highway obligation
ceiling. Funding for this initiative is authorized under
section 1069(y) of Public Law 102-240--the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act. The ADHS program provides funds
for the construction of the Appalachian corridor highways in
the 13 States that comprise the Appalachian region. These
highways, in many instances, are intended to replace some of
the most deficient and dangerous segments of rural roadway in
America.
The accompanying bill includes a general provision (sec.
331) providing $20,000,000 for surface transportation projects.
Within the funding provided, $3,000,000 shall be available for
interstate maintenance at I-405 Renton/Port Quendall,
Washington; $5,000,000 for improvements to Titan Road,
Colorado; $1,000,000 for the Owensboro Riverfront redevelopment
project, Kentucky; and $2,000,000 for the Martinsburg
Roundhouse redevelopment project in Martinsburg, West Virginia.

Limitation on Transportation Research

Limitation, 2001 \1\....................................................
Budget estimate, 2002 \1\ ..............................................
Committee recommendation................................ ($447,500,000)

\1\ Resources available in fiscal year 2001 and requested in fiscal year
2002 are assumed within the Federal aid highway obligation limitation in
the budget request for fiscal year 2002.

The limitation controls spending for the transportation
research and technology programs of the FHWA. This limitation
includes the intelligent transportation systems, surface
transportation research, technology deployment, training and
education, and university transportation research. The
Committee recommendation provides an obligation limitation for
transportation research of $447,500,000. This limitation is
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
consistent with the provisions of TEA21.

Surface transportation research......................... $101,000,000
Technology deployment program........................... 45,000,000
Training and education.................................. 19,000,000
Bureau of Transportation Statistics..................... 31,000,000
ITS standards, research, operational tests, and
development......................................... 105,000,000
ITS deployment.......................................... 120,000,000
University transportation research...................... 26,500,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal.......................................... 447,500,000

Highway research and development.--The Committee
appreciates the improvement in the justification accompanying
the budget request and notes the presentation of the surface
research estimate separate from the presentation of the
technology deployment funding estimate. The Committee notes
that FHWA is compiling a list of research and technology
accomplishments and will be reporting to both the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations on how funds to advance
research and development are being tracked separately from
funds spent on technology deployment and assessment functions.
The tracking of these expenses and a summary of the resulting
accomplishments will help the Committee exercise oversight over
the R&T program. Within the funds provided for highway research
and development under the surface transportation research
program, the Committee recommends the following allocation
consistent with the provisions of TEA21:

Environment, planning, and real estate.................. $15,558,000
Research and technology program support................. 8,510,000
International research.................................. 500,000
Structures.............................................. 14,250,000
Safety.................................................. 14,619,000
Operations and asset management......................... 10,200,000
Pavements research...................................... 13,753,000
Policy research......................................... 8,330,000
Long Term Pavement Project (LTTP)....................... 10,000,000
Advanced Research....................................... 1,000,000
Other................................................... 4,280,000

Environment, planning, and real estate.--The Committee
recommends $15,558,000 for environment, planning, and real
estate research, $31,000 more than the budget estimate and
$5,258,000 more than the fiscal year 2001 appropriated level.
Within the funds provided, the Committee recommendation
includes $1,300,000 for the completion of the dust and
persistent particulate abatement demonstration study at
Kotzebue, Alaska.
Research and technology program support.--The Committee
recommends $8,510,000, a reduction of $750,000 from the budget
estimate, and $7,610,000 above the fiscal year 2001
appropriated level. The Committee recommendation includes
$750,000 for the Center for Coastal Transportation Engineering
Research at the University of South Alabama to develop civil
engineering design of transportation facilities in
environmentally sensitive coastal areas.
International research.--The Committee recommendation
provides $500,000 for international research activities, the
amount authorized in TEA21, and a reduction of $700,000 from
the budget estimate.
Structures.--The Committee recommends $14,250,000 for
structures research, an increase of $4,801,000 from the budget
estimate. The funds provided will help the FHWA reduce
deficiencies on National Highway System Bridges and should
facilitate continued progress on high performance materials and
engineering applications to design, repair, retrofit, inspect,
and rehabilitate bridges. Within the funds provided, $1,500,000
is for research into composite structure and related
engineering research at West Virginia University; $850,000 is
to conduct non-corrosive anti-icing projects in the Chicago
region; $2,000,000 is for research conducted at the
Transportation Research Center (TAC) at the Washington State
University including non-destructive evaluation of bridges to
determine load capacities, impacts of earthquakes mitigation on
elevated highway structures and the development of advanced
composite materials for bridges; and $500,000 is for the
Electromagnetic Interrogation of Structures Project at the
University of Vermont to develop wireless methods of assessing
structure integrity.
Safety.--The Committee recommendation provides $14,619,000
for safety research activities consistent with the budget
estimate. These funds will allow FHWA to continue to accelerate
the substantial progress being made on technologies or
strategies to reduce run-off-the-road crashes, improve night-
time driving, reduce the frequency of crashes at intersections,
improve pedestrian safety, and develop and test the Interactive
Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM). The Committee understands
that the IHSDM is ready for additional testing by State DOTs.
The additional funds will expedite this process, and will also
allow the use of the IHSDM to explore the safety implications
of alternative designs. The Committee recommendation includes
$500,000 to continue the research into the effectiveness of
Freezefree anti-icing systems.
Operations and asset management.--The Committee
recommendation provides $10,200,000 for highway operations and
asset management research activities, an increase of $5,000,000
from the fiscal year 2001 appropriated level, and $4,382,000
less than the budget estimate.
Pavements research.--The Committee recommends $13,753,000
for highway pavement research, including work on asphalt,
Portland cement concrete pavements, polymer additives, and
recycled materials, $1,000,000 more than the budget estimate.
Along with the funds provided for the LTPP, this appropriation
will allow FHWA to undertake research projects to improve the
quality of America's highway infrastructure. Within the funds
provided, $1,000,000 is for a continuation of alkali silica
reactivity research with lithium based technologies to mitigate
alkali silica reactivity to prevent highway pavement cracking.
In addition, the Committee supports funding for the Center for
Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Technology Research.
Policy research.--The Committee recommendation provides
$8,330,000, consistent with the budget estimate and an increase
of $3,730,000 from the fiscal year 2001 appropriated level.
Advanced research.--The Committee recommendation provides
$1,000,000 for advanced research, consistent with the budget
estimate. The Committee requests FHWA to review the advanced
research program as it currently exists and to explore the role
FHWA should play in sponsoring a more robust national effort
that focuses on fundamental, long-term research. The results of
this effort should be reflected in the fiscal year 2003 budget
request or accompanying communications.
Other.--The Committee supports the FHWA effort with AASHTO,
TRB, among others in advancing a national R&T agenda in the
areas of safety, infrastructure renewal, operations and
mobility, planning and environment, and policy analysis and
systems monitoring. The Committee recognizes the benefits of
improved communication and coordination between key partners
and stakeholders, and awaits completion of the synthesis report
on the partnership initiative.
ITS Standards, Research, Operational Tests, Development,
and Deployment.--The Committee recommends that the $225,000,000
authorized in TEA21 for ITS research and associated activities
in fiscal year 2002 be allocated in the following manner:

Research and Development................................ $48,680,000
Operational Tests....................................... 12,930,000
Evaluation/Program Policy Assessment.................... 7,750,000
Architecture and Standards.............................. 15,290,000
Program Support......................................... 9,000,000
Integration............................................. 11,350,000
ITS Deployment Incentive Program........................ 120,000,000

Specified ITS deployment projects.--It is the intent of the
Committee that the following projects contribute to the
integration and interoperability for intelligent transportation
systems in metropolitan and rural areas as provided under
section 5208 of TEA21 and promote deployment of the commercial
vehicle intelligent transportation system infrastructure as
provided under section 5209 of TEA21. Funding for deployment
activities are to be available as follows:

Project Amount

Alaska Statewide........................................ $3,000,000
Arizona Statewide EMS................................... 1,000,000
Atlanta Metropolitan GRTA, Georgia...................... 1,000,000
Central Ohio............................................ 3,000,000
Chattanooga, Tennessee.................................. 2,380,000
Clark County, Washington................................ 1,000,000
Crash Notification, Alabama............................. 2,500,000
Delaware Statewide...................................... 4,000,000
Detroit, Michigan (Airport)............................. 4,500,000
Durham, Wake Counties, North Carolina................... 1,000,000
Fargo, North Dakota..................................... 1,500,000
Forsyth, Guilford Counties, North Carolina.............. 2,000,000
Harrison County, Mississippi............................ 1,000,000
Hawaii Statewide........................................ 1,750,000
Illinois Statewide...................................... 3,750,000
Indiana Statewide....................................... 1,500,000
Jackson Metropolitan, Mississippi....................... 1,000,000
Las Vegas, Nevada....................................... 3,000,000
Lexington, Kentucky..................................... 1,500,000
Macomb, Michigan (border crossing)...................... 2,000,000
Maine Statewide (Rural)................................. 1,000,000
Maryland Statewide...................................... 2,000,000
Moscow, Idaho........................................... 2,000,000
Nebraska Statewide...................................... 5,000,000
New York, New Jersey, Connecticut (TRANSCOM)............ 7,000,000
North Greenbush, New York............................... 2,000,000
Pennsylvania Statewide (Turnpike)....................... 1,000,000
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Drexel)..................... 3,000,000
Rutland, Vermont........................................ 1,200,000
Sacramento, California.................................. 6,000,000
SAFE-T, Indiana......................................... 3,000,000
Santa Anita, California................................. 1,000,000
Santa Teresa, New Mexico................................ 1,500,000
South Carolina Statewide................................ 7,000,000
Southeast Corridor, Colorado............................ 9,900,000
Southern Nevada (bus)................................... 2,200,000
St. Louis, Gateway Guide, Missouri...................... 1,500,000
Texas Statewide......................................... 4,000,000
Travel Network, South Dakota............................ 3,200,000
Vermont Statewide (Rural)............................... 1,500,000
Washington Metropolitan Region.......................... 4,000,000
Washington Statewide.................................... 6,000,000
Wisconsin Communications Network........................ 620,000
Wisconsin Statewide..................................... 2,000,000

Illinois Statewide.--The Committee provides $3,750,000 to
the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) for
Intelligent Transportation Systems grants. Within the funds
provided, the Committee expects IDOT to fund the following
projects: (1) $750,000 to Lake County for a Traffic Management
Center; (2) $750,000 to DuPage County for projects affecting
Army Trail Road, Glen Ellyn Road, and Maple Avenue Signal
Interconnects; (3) $750,000 to the City of Quincy for the 18th
Street Bridge; and (4) $750,000 to the City of Carbondale for
Southern Illinois University-Carbondale's Materials Technology
Center.

Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................................
Budget estimate, 2002 \2\............................... $6,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 6,000,000

\1\ Funding for NDGPS provided within FAA ``facilities and equipment''
account.
\2\ Funding to be derived from administrative takedown under 23 U.S.C.
104(a)(1)(A).

NDGPS.--The Committee recommendation includes $6,000,000
for continued investment in the Nationwide NPGPS Network, as
proposed in the budget estimate and as presented in the
limitation on administrative expenses.

Bureau of Transportation Statistics

(limitation on obligations)

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................ $31,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 43,760,000
Committee recommendation................................ 34,760,000

\1\ Does not reflect 0.22 percent reduction in section 1403 of Public
Law 106-554.

The Bureau of Transportation Statistics [BTS] was
established in section 6006 of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA], to compile, analyze, and
make accessible information on the Nation's transportation
systems, collect information on intermodal transportation, and
enhance the quality and effectiveness of the statistical
programs of the Department of Transportation. For fiscal year
2002, the Committee recommends a funding level of $34,760,000,
$3,760,000 more than the fiscal year 2001 enacted level and
$9,000,000 less than the President's budget request.
Office of Airline Information.--Section 103(b) of the
Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st
Century authorizes funding from the Airport and Airway Trust
Fund for the Office of Airline Information (OAI) within the
Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
The Office of Airline Information collects and compiles
financial and traffic (passenger and cargo) data. This
information provides the Government with uniform and
comprehensive economic and market data on individual airline
operations. This program includes a small field office located
in Anchorage, AK, which provides consumers and the Government
with airline data related to essential air service and the
intra-Alaskan mail rate program. The statistical aviation data
compiled by OAI includes: airline passenger traffic statistics,
ontime performance data by carrier, financial performance and
certification data, fuel purchase and consumption, and other
business and consumer directed statistics. The Committee
provides $3,760,000 for the Office of Airline Information to be
derived from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics safety data action
plan.--The Committee has denied BTS's request for the agency's
safety data action plan due to higher funding priorities in
other critical areas.

Federal-Aid Highways

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2001

$28,000,000,000

Budget estimate, 2002

30,000,000,000
Committee recommendation
30,000,000,000

The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation
of $30,000,000,000.

FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Summary of Fiscal Year 2002 Program

In December 1999, the Congress passed the Motor Carrier
Safety Improvement Act (Public Law 106-159), which established
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) within
the Department of Transportation. Prior to this legislation,
motor carrier safety responsibilities were housed within the
Federal Highway Administration.
The preeminent mission of the FMCSA is to improve the
safety of commercial vehicle operations on the nation's
highways. A primary goal of the agency is to reduce the number
of accidents and fatalities due to truck accidents. FMCSA
resources and activities contribute to safety in commercial
vehicle operations through enforcement, safety regulation,
technological innovation, improvements in information systems,
training, and improvements to commercial driver's license
testing, record keeping, and sanctions. To achieve these goals,
the FMCSA works with Federal, State, and local enforcement
agencies, the motor carrier industry, and highway safety
organizations.

Motor Carrier Safety

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

The Motor Carrier Safety account provides for the salaries,
operating expenses and research funding for the FMCSA. The
Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA) amended
Section 104(a)(1) of title 23 to provide one-third of 1 percent
of the administrative takedown to be made available to
administer motor carrier safety programs and motor carrier
research. The administration's budget requests a takedown of
two-thirds of 1 percent for these purposes.

Limitation on administrative Expense

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................ $92,194,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 139,007,000
Committee recommendation................................ 105,000,000

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $202,827 pursuant to section 1403 of
Public Law 106-554; and does not reflect $375,000 obligation limitation
transfer from FHWA.

The Committee recommends the following adjustments to the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
budget request:

Deny BTS Safety Data Improvements....................... -$9,000,000
Reduce research and technology activities............... -7,128,000
Transfer funding for crash data improvements, CDL
program, and hotline to FHWA........................ -11,000,000

Motor Carrier Research.--The Committee recommends
$7,000,000 for motor carrier research and technology, which is
$7,128,000 less than the amount requested. The amount provided
is funded under the section 104(a)(1)(A) takedown within the
Federal Highway Administration.
Truck Drivers' Fatigue management study.--Within the funds
provided, the Committee includes $400,000 for a study to
determine the fatigue management techniques used by truck
drivers during overnight operations with an organization
representing unionized motor carriers in cooperation with their
labor organization.
In Senate Report 106-55 and Senate Report 106-309, the
Committee specified the information that it needed to review
properly the request for this R&T program. The fiscal year 2002
budget submittal fails to respond to these specifications and
is inadequate to justify a 40 percent increase in funds over
the fiscal year 2001 appropriation. The Committee continues to
seek a budget justification for FMCSA's R&T program that is of
the same level of detail and quality as that provided by other
surface transportation agencies.
Highway Watch Program.--Within the amount provided for
motor carrier research, the Committee directs that not less
than $1,000,000 shall be made available to analyze, evaluate
and expand the Highway Watch program. The program is a national
safety outreach initiative that trains professional truck
drivers to recognize and report a variety of incidents on the
Nation's highways.
Crash Causation and Data Analysis.--The Committee
encourages FMSCA to make available the preliminary results of
the crash causation study as soon as a sufficiently large and
representative data set is analyzed. The preliminary as well as
the final study will help FMCSA prioritize its activities and
will be relevant to future legislation seeking to ensure that
Federal investments are focused on efforts to reduce the
primary causes of commercial vehicle crashes.
Within the funds provided, the Committee includes $100,000
for the deployment and evaluation of a nation-wide ``Share the
Road Safely'' program. The program is targeted at urban and
suburban operators of passenger automobiles and truck drivers
in cooperation with an organization representing unionized
motor carriers in cooperation with their labor organization.
Improvements Still Needed at FMCSA.--The Committee remains
concerned with the need for a strengthened motor carrier safety
program. There is no question that progress has been made
toward improving motor carrier safety since the agency was
established as a separate modal administration. FMCSA is
conducting more compliance reviews (audits) and has claimed,
per case and in total, an increased level of financial
penalties against companies judged to be in probable violation
of the safety regulations. Progress has also been made on some
key regulatory and strategic planning initiatives as well as
the review of State CDL programs. The Committee, however,
remains concerned that the agency continues to allow many other
key safety initiatives to languish, and has not responded to
several congressional directives and legal mandates in a timely
fashion. For example, the Committee has often noted the
deficiencies and loopholes the CDL program but the FMCSA has
not implemented all of the regulatory changes necessary to
resolve these deficiencies. The Department has not issued final
regulations regarding the establishment of a uniform program
for State hazardous materials registration and permits as
required by law. In addition, FMCSA has not made progress on
the training requirements for commercial drivers. The Committee
expects the FMCSA to make rapid progress in all of these areas
at the soonest possible time.

Safety of Cross-Border Trucking between the United States and Mexico

The North American Free Trade Agreement anticipated the
initiation of cross-border trucking shipments between the
United States and Mexico. However, due to concerns over the
safety of the Mexican trucking fleet, the Government of the
United States opted not to allow Mexico-domiciled motor
carriers to transport cross-border shipments beyond a limited
commercial zone into the United States. As recently as May
2000, testimony by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration maintained that Mexico did not have a
comprehensive and integrated safety oversight system in place
that would facilitate a decision on the part of the U.S.
Government to open the border. On February 6, 2001, an Arbitral
Panel issued its findings on the issue of Cross-Border
Trucking. The Panel concluded the United States could not
exclude all Mexican trucking firms from crossing the border.
Following the panels report, the U.S. Administration announced
its decision to allow Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to enter
the United States sometime before January 1, 2002.
The Arbitral Panel concluded that the United States cannot
bar all Mexican applicants from entering the United States.
However, the Arbitral Panel also found that, in view of the
differences between the United States and Mexican regulatory
regimens, the United States did not have to treat applications
from Mexican based carriers in exactly the same manner as
United States or Canadian firms. The Panel indicated that NAFTA
did not restrict the ability of the United States to implement
measures to ensure Mexican trucking companies and Mexican truck
drivers meet U.S. safety standards. The Arbitral Panel
concluded:

``Compliance by the United States with its NAFTA
obligations would not necessarily require providing
favorable consideration to all, or to any, specific
number of applications from Mexican-owned trucking
firms, when it is evident that a particular applicant
or applicants may be unable to comply with U.S.
trucking regulations when operating in the United
States. Nor does it require that Mexican-domiciled
firms currently providing trucking services in the
United States be allowed to continue to do so, if and
when they fail to comply with U.S. safety regulations.
The United States may not be required to treat
applications from Mexican trucking firms in exactly the
same manner as applications from United States or
Canadian firms, as long as they are reviewed on a case-
by-case basis. U.S. authorities are responsible for the
safe operations of trucks within U.S. territory,
whether ownership is United States, Canadian or
Mexican.'' (emphasis added)

The Committee is greatly concerned that the Department of
Transportation's plans to address the risks posed by some
Mexican-domiciled motor carriers will not be sufficient to
ensure the level of safety on our highways the American people
have come to expect. As demonstrated below, Mexican trucks that
crossed the U.S. border legally to serve the commercial zone
surrounding and adjoining the United States border, have been
ordered off the road by U.S. Motor Carrier Inspectors 50
percent more frequently than U.S. trucks. It is noteworthy to
point out that the ``out of service'' rate for United States
trucks lags behind that of Canadian trucks.

The Committee has reviewed several assessments of this
problem including reports filed by the Department of
Transportation Inspector General as recently as May 2001, as
well as assessments prepared by the Controller General, the
Congressional Research Service, and the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration. Recognizing the responsibility of the
United States to fulfill its treaty obligations, the Committee
has included a provision that will ensure that those Mexico-
domiciled motor carriers that enter the United States will
demonstrate a safety record at least equal to that of its U.S.
counterparts. The Committee has simultaneously provided
$103,200,000 for initiatives to enhance truck safety at the
Mexican Border. The amount provided is $15,000,000 more than
the level included in the President's request. The funding
provided includes:
--$13,900,000 funded in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration limitation on administrative expenses to
hire 80 additional truck safety inspectors;
--$18,000,000 requested for enhanced Motor Carrier Safety
Grants for the border; and
--$71,300,000 in funding for the construction and improvement
of Motor Carrier Safety Inspection facilities along the
United States-Mexico border.
As described below, the Committee provision seeks to ensure
that the resources necessary for a rigorous enforcement and
safety program at the Mexican border will be in place prior to
the border being opened to Mexico-domiciled commercial motor
vehicles. The following describes the Committee's specific
concerns regarding the Administration's plan, followed by a
description of the provision that addresses each concern.

Absence of Border Inspectors

At present, Federal and State border The Committee provision
inspectors are on duty 24 hours-a-day at requires the DOT to only
only 2 of 27 border crossings. Mexican allow Mexican trucks to
trucks crossing the border during off cross the border at
hours are not subject to inspection. inspection facilities where
inspectors are present and
on-duty. [Note: ``Mexican
trucks'' here, and hereafter
in this document, refer to
Mexico-domiciled commercial
motor vehicles operating
beyond the commercial zone].

More Fully Trained Inspectors Needed

At present, the level of inspector The Committee
resources is not adequate to handle even recommendation fully funds
the current level of limited traffic from the Administration's request
Mexican trucks--much less the influx of for 80 additional border
trucks expected once the border is fully inspectors. Moreover, the
opened. It takes anywhere from 6 months to Committee provision
a year to actually hire and fully train a prohibits the full opening
new safety inspector. of the border until the DOT
Inspector General certifies
that all of these inspectors
are fully trained as safety
specialists capable of
conducting compliance
reviews and that the
Administration has not
accomplished this goal by
transferring experienced
inspectors elsewhere in the
country to the border so as
to undermine the level of
inspection coverage and
safety elsewhere in the
nation.

Inspection Plans Are Inadequate

The DOT plans to issue conditional The Committee provision
operating certificates to Mexican trucking requires the DOT to perform
firms to enter the United States based a full safety audit of each
largely on the answers from a Mexican trucking firm before
questionnaire. The DOT will perform a full any conditional operating
safety audit of these firms within 18 certificate is granted and
months of the operating certificate being then perform a full follow-
granted. The firm can operate freely in up compliance review again
the United States throughout this 18-month within 18 months before a
period. permanent operating
certificate can be granted.

Inspection Venue is Inadequate

The DOT is planning to perform its The Committee provision
safety audits of Mexican trucking firms at requires that all safety
the border rather than at each firm's audits of Mexican trucking
facilities. For both United States and firms take place on-site at
Canadian trucking firms, the DOT conducts each firm's facilities.
compliance reviews at each firm's
facilities.

Mexican Trucks Have No Record Of Compliance with Hours-Of-Service

Only in the last few months has Mexico The Committee provision
established hours-of-service rules and the prohibits the full opening
vast majority of Mexican truckers are of the border until the DOT
exempt. As such, Mexican truckers will Inspector General certifies
have no experience with compliance with that the Federal Motor
such rules and U.S. inspectors will not Carrier Safety
know how long a trucker has already been Administration has
driving when they arrive at the border. implemented a policy to
ensure compliance on the
part of Mexican truckers
with pertinent hours-of-
service rules. The DOT will
be required to give a
distinctive DOT number to
all Mexican trucking firms
operating beyond the
commercial zone to assist
state inspectors in
enforcing hours-of-service
regulations as well as other
Federal safety rules.

Validity of Licenses Are Not Verifiable And Are Not Routinely Checked

Most border crossing inspection stations The Committee provision
do not even have telephone lines much less prohibits the full opening
computer linkages to confirm that licenses of the border until the DOT
and other documents carried by Mexican Inspector General certifies
truckers are valid. Many State inspectors that the information
do not routinely check the status and infrastructure of the
validity of the documents of Mexican Mexican authorities is
drivers that are inspected at the sufficiently accurate,
roadside. This is true even where the accessible, and integrated
telephone or computer links do exist. The with that of U.S. law
Mexican computer databases regarding enforcement authorities to
licenses are terribly inadequate. allow U.S. authorities to
verify the status and
validity of licenses,
vehicle registration,
operating authority, and
insurance of Mexican motor
carriers while operating in
the United States. The
Inspector General must also
verify that adequate
telephonic and computer
links exist at all border
crossings and in all mobile
enforcement units operating
adjacent to the border to
ensure the opportunity to
verify the status and
validity of these documents.
The DOT will require all
Federal and State inspectors
to electronically verify the
status and validity of the
documents of every Mexican
truck crossing the border.

Federally-Funded Inspectors Not Enforcing Federal Regulations

Even though most State truck inspectors The Committee provision
are compensated largely with Federal tax prohibits the full opening
dollars, many inspectors at the border do of the border until the DOT
not enforce Federal registration requires that all State
regulations when they differ from State inspectors funded in part or
requirements. For example, only California in whole with Federal funds
inspectors require Mexican trucks to show check for violations of
proof of operating authority. Moreover, Federal regulations. All
State inspectors, when they find a violations detected by State
deficiency that is a violation of Federal inspectors of Federal law
but not State law, do not always refer the will be either enforced by
case to a Federal inspector for State inspectors or
enforcement. forwarded to Federal
authorities for enforcement
action.

Inadequate Facilities For Truck Inspections

At 70 percent of border crossings, motor The Committee provision
carrier inspectors currently have space to prohibits the full opening
only inspect 1 or 2 trucks at a time. At of the border until the DOT
more than half of the border crossings, Inspector General has
inspectors currently have only 1 or 2 certified that there is
spaces to park vehicles placed out of adequate capacity to conduct
service, undermining their ability to a sufficient number of
order unsafe trucks off the road. meaningful truck inspections
to maintain safety.

Inadequate Capacity To Check Compliance With U.S. Weight Limitations

Mexican trucks are currently permitted The Committee provision
to operate in Mexico at axle and gross prohibits the full opening
weights which are far higher than U.S. of the border until the DOT
standards. Overweight trucks pose a has equipped all Mexican
greater safety risk to the driving public border crossings with Weigh-
but there is little if any infrastructure In-Motion (WIM) systems as
to weigh trucks at the border. well as fixed scales
suitable for enforcement
action. The DOT will be
required to verify by either
means the weight of all
commercial vehicles entering
the United States.

Inadequate Data On Safety Record Of Mexican Trucking Firms and Drivers

Unlike the United States, Mexico does The Committee provision
not currently have a comprehensive prohibits the full opening
mechanism to collect data on the safety of the border until the DOT
record of Mexican trucking firms and Inspector General certifies
drivers. that there is an accessible
database containing
sufficiently comprehensive
data to allow for safety
performance monitoring of
all Mexican firms applying
for operating certificates
and for all Mexican drivers
that may enter the United
States. Also, the DOT IG
must certify that measures
are in place similar to
those in the United States
to ensure that Mexican
drivers who lose their
licenses cannot obtain
another one through
surreptitious means.

Critical Safety Rules Not In Place

DOT has rushed to implement the rules to The Committee provision
allow Mexican trucks to enter the United prohibits the full opening
States. At the same time, several safety- of the border until the DOT
related rulemakings which pertain to publishes in final form the
Mexican carriers and are required by law, following overdue
have not been finalized. regulations:
--rules establishing
minimum requirements for
motor carriers, including
foreign motor carriers,
to ensure they are
knowledgeable about
Federal safety standards,
including the
administration of a
proficiency exam;
--rules implementing
measures to improve
training and provide for
the certification of
motor carrier safety
auditors;
--rules requiring the
development of staffing
standards to determine
the appropriate number of
Federal and State motor
carrier inspectors for
the Mexican border;
--rules prohibiting
foreign motor carriers
from leasing their
vehicles to another
carrier to transport
products to the United
States while the firm is
subjected to a
suspension, restriction,
or limitation on its
right to operate in the
United States; and
--rules disqualifying
permanently from
operating in the United
States any foreign motor
carrier that is found to
have operated illegally
in the United States.

National Motor Carrier Safety Program

(liquidation of contract authorization)

(Highway Trust Fund)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Liquidation of
contract (Limitation on
authorization) obligations)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001............ $177,000,000 \1\ $177,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002........... 204,837,000 204,837,000
Committee recommendation........ 204,837,000 204,837,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $389,400 pursuant to section 1403 of
Public Law 106-554.

The FMCSA's National Motor Carrier Safety Program (NMCSP)
was authorized by TEA21 and amended by the Motor Carrier Safety
Improvement Act of 1999. This program consists of two major
areas: the motor carrier safety assistance program (MCSAP) and
the information systems and strategic safety initiatives
(ISSSI). MCSAP provides grants and project funding to States to
develop and implement national programs for the uniform
enforcement of Federal and State rules and regulations
concerning motor safety. The major objective of this program is
to reduce the number and severity of accidents involving
commercial motor vehicles. Grants are made to qualified States
for the development of programs to enforce the Federal motor
carrier safety and hazardous materials regulations and the
Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986. The basic program
is targeted at roadside vehicle safety inspections of both
interstate and intrastate commercial motor vehicle traffic.
ISSSI provides funds to develop and enhance data-related motor
carrier programs.
The Committee recommends $204,837,000 in liquidating cash
for this program. This is an increase of $27,837,000 above the
level enacted in fiscal year 2001.

Limitation on Obligations

The Committee recommends a $204,837,000 limitation on
obligations for motor carrier safety grants. This is the level
authorized under the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of
1999, which amended TEA21. This funding level includes
$22,837,000 in Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA), as
authorized under 23 U.S.C. 110, as amended.

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Summary of Fiscal Year 2002 Program

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA]
was established as a separate organizational entity in the
Department of Transportation in March 1970, to reduce the
escalating number of deaths, injuries, and economic costs
resulting from traffic crashes on the Nation's highways. The
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides for the
establishment and enforcement of Federal safety standards for
motor vehicles and associated equipment and research, including
the operation of required testing facilities and the National
Driver Register. The Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings
Act initially provided for the establishment of low-speed,
collision bumper standards, consumer information activities,
diagnostic inspection, and odometer regulations and was later
amended to incorporate responsibility for the administration of
Federal automotive fuel economy standards.
The Highway Safety Act provides for a coordinated highway
safety grant program to be carried out by the States, together
with supporting research, development, and demonstration
programs. Under section 403 of title 23, United States Code,
technical assistance is provided to the States in the conduct
of their highway safety programs, and research and
demonstration projects are conducted to develop and show the
effectiveness of new techniques and countermeasures to address
highway safety problems.
Grants are provided to the States under title 23, United
States Code, section 402 to assist in the establishment and
improvement of highway safety programs designed to reduce
traffic crashes, deaths, and injuries. Alcohol incentive grants
are allocated to the States for alcohol-impaired driver safety
programs. The occupant protection incentive grants program
rewards States that implement strong laws and programs to
increase safety belt and child safety seat use.
The following table summarizes the Committee
recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Program 2001 enacted Fiscal year Committee
\1\ 2002 estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations and research...................................... $190,876,000 $196,000,000 $206,000,000
National driver register (HTF)............................... (2,000,000) (2,000,000) (2,000,000)
Highway traffic safety grants (firewall)..................... 213,000,000 223,000,000 223,000,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 403,876,000 419,000,000 429,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect reductions of $888,527 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106-554.

Operations and Research

(Including Highway Trust Fund)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Fund Trust Fund Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001......................................... $116,876,000 $74,000,000 $190,876,000
Budget estimate, 2002........................................ 122,000,000 74,000,000 196,000,000
Committee recommendation..................................... 132,000,000 74,000,000 206,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For fiscal year 2002, the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century (TEA21), as amended, authorizes $72,000,000 of
contract authority from the highway trust fund to finance
operations and research activities eligible under title 23
U.S.C. 403. This funding is included within the firewall
guarantee for highway spending and is not subject to
appropriation. The act also includes an authorization, subject
to appropriations, from the highway trust fund of $2,000,000 to
maintain the National Driver Register. In addition, the
administration is requesting $122,000,000 for activities
related to sections 30104 and 32102 of title 49. This funding
is derived from the general fund and is subject to
appropriations.
The Administration has submitted a budget request of
$196,000,000 for NHTSA's operations and research account. The
budget request consists of $72,000,000 from the highway trust
fund guarantee for highway safety and research and analysis
programs and $2,000,000 from the highway trust fund for the
National Driver Register.
The Committee recommends fully funding the authorized
level, and the accompanying bill provides appropriations
totaling $206,000,000 to be distributed as follows:

Committee
Program recommendation
Salaries and benefits................................... $61,471,000
Travel.................................................. 1,297,000
Operating expenses...................................... 23,113,000
Contract Programs:
Safety performance.................................. 7,891,000
Safety assurance.................................... 15,064,000
Highway safety...................................... 50,333,000
Research and analysis............................... 57,338,000
General administration.............................. 643,000
Grant administration reimbursement...................... -11,150,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 206,000,000

Salaries and benefits

Staffing level.--The Committee recommends $61,471,000 for
salaries and benefits, $4,341,000 more than the fiscal year
2001 enacted level and $750,000 more than the President's
budget request. The Committee includes an increase of $750,000
for 7.5 FTE's in the Safety Standards Support program to assist
with the agency's regulatory agenda. The Committee approves 709
full time positions for NHTSA and expects to see progress on
the agency's ability to meet congressional mandates and
deadlines.

safety performance standards

Safety Standards Support.--The Committee recommends
$2,550,000 for safety standards support, $850,000 above the
fiscal year 2001 enacted level and $550,000 above the
President's budget request. The Committee notes that NHTSA's
fiscal year 2002 performance plan sets a goal of reducing the
number of highway-related injuries and fatalities by 20 percent
by 2008. The data suggests, however, that the numbers are
moving in the opposite direction. Last year, both the number
and the rate of vehicle deaths and injuries increased. The
Committee believes that progress on NHTSA's regulatory agenda
would make a significant contribution to the achievement of the
agency's safety goals. The Committee has included additional
resources for the safety standard support program as well as
additional staff as mentioned earlier in this report. These
increases are intended to expedite NHTSA's actions on several
key Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and to assist with
the agency's implementation of the Transportation Recall
Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation (TREAD) Act.
While the Committee acknowledges that NHTSA has implemented
some of the provisions in the TREAD Act, there remain several
key regulations in the areas of tire standards, child safety
restraints and dynamic rollover testing that are to be
finalized next year. There are other important motor vehicle
safety rules that have been neglected and need to be updated or
issued. These include a revised roof crush standard to improve
the current standard originally issued in 1971; a rollover
stability standard to address the 10,000 passenger vehicle
occupant deaths occurring annually as a result of rollover
crashes; upgrading the 1971 Federal safety standard for seat
back strength; improvements in pedestrian crash protection to
reduce the aggressive quality of passenger vehicle front ends.
The Committee expects NHTSA to utilize these additional
resources to meet the regulatory deadlines set in the TREAD Act
and to make noticeable progress on the agency's regulatory
backlog.
To assist the Committee in its oversight function, the
Administrator of NHTSA is directed to submit to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations a notification letter as
soon as there is a reasonable likelihood that the Agency will
be unable to meet any of the deadlines specified in the TREAD
Act. NHTSA's Administrator also is directed to submit a
strategic implementation plan to both the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations with the submission of the
President's fiscal year 2003 budget, specifying the timetable,
milestones to be accomplished, and supporting research (if
applicable) for each of the provisions of the TREAD Act. The
plan should identify research projects, regulatory actions,
information gathering efforts, and public information
activities, as well as associated fiscal year 2001 and fiscal
year 2002 funding amounts relevant to each of the provisions of
the TREAD Act.

highway safety programs

The Committee recommends the following adjustments to the
budget request:

Occupant protection:
Enhance public education materials.................. +$1,000,000
Increase local efforts to increase belt use......... +2,000,000
Impaired Driving........................................ +2,700,000
Highway Safety Research: Safe mobility for older drivers +1,000,000
New/Emerging/TEA-21 Issues: Cell phones and driver
distrac-
tion +1,000,000
Traffic Law Enforcement: Technologies to reduce speeding
and aggressive driving.............................. +1,000,000

Occupant Protection Enhancements.--The Committee is
concerned that NHTSA is making insufficient progress toward
reaching the goal of achieving a 90 percent national seat belt
use rate by 2005. In fact, over the last 4 years, seat belt use
has only increased 2 percent to a total of 71 percent. To
expedite the agency's progress, the Committee recommends
$13,953,000 to improve NHTSA's occupant protection efforts,
which is $3,000,000 more than the amount requested in the
President's budget. Consistent with the recommendations of the
Blue Ribbon Panel to Increase Seat Belt Use Among African
Americans, NHTSA is expected to enhance its public education
activities pertaining to occupant protection. This work will
include the development and deployment of credible, positive,
culturally appropriate health and safety values in media
messages and literature to increase occupant protection by
minority groups. Research shows that minorities are over-
represented in motor vehicle crashes and these populations are
less likely to wear seat belts or use child safety seats. For
example, black children ages 5 through 12 face a risk of dying
in a crash that is almost three times as great as white
children. As the relative percentage of minorities increases,
the need to better educate all segments of the population about
the importance of occupant protection increases. Also, NHTSA
should intensify its efforts to increase occupant protection
use rates by the Hispanic population, as well as other high
risk groups, such as younger drivers and occasional users of
seat belts.
Last year, the Committee initiated a new effort to increase
local government participation in promoting occupant protection
activities. There has been definitive interest in this
initiative and it should be expanded. The Selective Traffic
Enforcement Program (STEP) has been shown to increase seat belt
use rates and has been widely tested. Past NHTSA studies show
that strong local leadership and coordination of activities are
essential to conducting successful STEP activities. The
Committee's allowance includes $2,000,000 to further deploy the
STEP process as well as other innovative strategies by local
governments seeking to increase seat belt use rates in their
jurisdiction. NHTSA is directed to publically advertise the
availability of these funds and to seek a wide range of
applicants. In addition, the Committee has included bill
language which would allow States to use traffic safety grants
for public service messages as well as designate $15,000,000
for the use of public safety messages during Operation ABC
Mobilizations. A more detailed discussion of these public
safety message initiatives is included in the NHTSA bill
language section of this report.
Older Driver Initiative.--The Committee provides an
increase of $1,000,000 in Highway Safety Research to strengthen
NHTSA's efforts to promote the safe mobility of older
Americans. Federal data show that, while driving-related
fatalities have decreased for all other age groups over the
past 20 years, the rate for elderly drivers over 75 years has
grown from 9.5 deaths to 14.3 deaths per 100,000 population--an
increase of roughly 50.5 percent. Experts are now predicting
that without corrective action, by 2030, the number of older
persons killed in automobile crashes will increase three-fold.
The additional funds will improve methodologies to better
assess the capabilities of older drivers, and analyze ways to
rehabilitate older Americans who have suffered strokes or other
medical problems to resume some or all of their driving, if
medically qualified.
Cellphones and driver distraction.--The Committee provides
an increase of $1,000,000 for Emerging Traffic Safety Issues in
support of NHTSA's research to understand the factors that
affect a driver's performance while using various in-vehicle
technologies. The Committee also supports the development of
test procedures and guidelines that can be used to design
equipment that minimizes driver distraction. Research on how
driver age and experience affects driver distraction also
should be vigorously pursued. Sufficient funds to conduct a
comprehensive research program are provided in the National
Intelligent Transportation Systems Program in the FHWA, and in
the research and analysis component of NHTSA's budget. While
this research is ongoing, the Committee maintains that both
drivers and passengers could benefit from information on the
potential safety risks that can arise from various forms of
driver distraction and overload. The public dissemination of
information on this topic is time critical because the rate of
deployment of these technologies is outpacing the knowledge of
their impact on safety. The Committee directs NHTSA to submit a
letter before January 1, 2002, to both the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations outlining the scope and direction
of its efforts to provide relevant consumer and public
information relevant to this safety challenge.
Improved Technologies to Reduce Speeding and Aggressive
Driving.--The Committee provides an increase of $1,000,000 for
NHTSA's Traffic Law Enforcement Program. Various technologies,
such as ITS, photo radar, and other electronic devices, can be
used to alert law enforcement agencies to speeding or
aggressive driving. NHTSA is expected to explore opportunities
to advance and deploy such technologies. Funding should be
provided to one or more State and local enforcement agencies to
test approaches on secondary roads as well as on interstates.
Impaired Driving.--The Committee recommends $12,517,000 for
NHTSA's impaired driving program, which is $2,700,000 more than
the President's budget request. The additional funds will be
used primarily to help States and communities control repeat
impaired, driving offenders. The agency will conduct a
nationwide program to inform State and local governments, law
enforcement agencies, and courts of the latest proven
strategies for detection, arrest, prosecution, sentencing, and
rehabilitation, including in-vehicle alcohol interlocks, home
confinement techniques, and driver identification systems. The
Committee envisions that the agency will explore whether
technology transfer vans similar to those successfully used by
the FHWA, could be an important part of this information
program. The demonstration of best practices and peer-to-peer
assistance should be emphasized. The agency may award up to
one-half of the funds as small grants to assist States and
communities that wish to implement promising new strategies.
Emergency Medical Services.--The Committee recommends
$2,245,000 for emergency medical services. Within the funds
provided, the Committee includes $1,000,000 to continue
training EMS personnel in delivering pre-hospital care to
patients with traumatic brain injuries. The Committee urges
NHTSA to continue this national roll-out with the Brain Trauma
Foundation and its Centers of Excellence. The Centers will
continue research into pre- and post-training data collection
and evaluation of the efficacy of the Brain Trauma Foundation's
Pre-hospital Traumatic Brain Injury guidelines. The funding
will help NHTSA's Emergency Medical Services significantly
decrease mortality and morbidity due to severe head injury
throughout the United States while reducing in-hospital time
and costs, by ensuring that scientific based procedures are
being used in ambulances. The Committee expects to see a
broader array of participation in the use of these EMS
protocols.
Driver Behavior/Simulation Research.--The Committee
includes $3,450,000 for driver behavior/simulation research as
requested in the President's budget. The Committee supports
NHTSA's research to understand the factors that affect a
driver's performance since it is estimated that nearly 90
percent of all motor vehicle crashes are the result of driver
error.

research and analysis

Biomechanical research.--The Committee provides $2,500,000
to continue research related to traumatic brain and spinal cord
injuries caused by motor vehicle, motorcycle, and bicycle
accidents at the Injury Control Research Center and encourages
NHTSA to expand this research effort to the other centers of
the Southern Consortium for Injury Biomechanics.
Brake lining friction study.--The Committee is aware that
NHTSA has issued regulations regarding stopping performance of
medium and heavy duty trucks. The Committee understands that to
remain in compliance with these rules, replacement brake lining
must have the same friction rating as that of the original
brake lining. The Committee further understands that a uniform
method for measuring brake lining friction and permanently
marking the lining with that rating is unavailable and thus
directs NHTSA to perform research into rating brake lining
friction and permanently marking the lining with that rating.
Within the funds provided, the Committee provides $300,000 for
research into the rating of brake lining friction in order to
facilitate a rulemaking in this area.

national driver register

highway trust fund

The National Driver Register [NDR] is a central repository
of information on individuals whose licenses to operate a motor
vehicle have been revoked, suspended, canceled, or denied. The
NDR also contains information on persons who have been
convicted of serious traffic-related violations such as driving
while impaired by alcohol or other drugs. State driver
licensing officials query the NDR when individuals apply for a
license, for the purpose of determining whether driving
privileges have been withdrawn by other States. Other
organizations such as the Federal Aviation Administration and
the Federal Railroad Administration also use NDR license data
in hiring and certification decisions in overall U.S.
transportation operations.
The bill includes $2,000,000 for the NDR from the highway
trust fund.

Highway Traffic Safety Grants

(Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

(Highway Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................ $213,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 223,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 223,000,000

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $468,000 pursuant to section 1403 of
Public Law 106-554.

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
authorized the following State grant programs: Highway Safety
Program, the Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive
Grant Program, the Occupant Protection Incentive Grant Program,
and the State Highway Safety Data Grant Program. Under the
Highway Safety Program, grant allocations are determined on the
basis of a statutory formula established under 20 U.S.C. 402.
Individual States use this funding in national priority areas
established by Congress which have the greatest potential for
achieving safety improvements and reducing traffic crashes,
fatalities, and injuries. Also, the national occupant
protection survey shall be funded from within this amount. The
Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive Grant
Program encourages States to enact stiffer laws and implement
stronger programs to detect and remove impaired drivers from
the roads. The occupant protection program encourages States to
promote and strengthen occupant protection initiatives. The
State Highway Safety Data Grants Program encourages States to
improve their collection and dissemination of important highway
safety data.
The Committee recommends an appropriation for liquidation
of contract authorization of $223,000,000 for the payment of
obligations incurred in carrying out provisions of these grant
programs.
The Committee has included a provision prohibiting the use
of section 402 funds for construction, rehabilitation or
remodeling costs, or for office furnishings and fixtures for
State, local, or private buildings or structures.

limitation on obligations

The bill includes language limiting the obligations to be
incurred under the various highway traffic safety grants
programs. Separate obligation limitations are included in the
bill with the following funding allocations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2001 Fiscal year 2002 Committee
enacted \1\ estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway safety programs.................................... $154,659,000 $160,000,000 $160,000,000
Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures grants........... 35,921,000 38,000,000 38,000,000
Occupant protection incentive grants....................... 12,971,000 15,000,000 15,000,000
State highway safety data grants........................... 8,980,000 10,000,000 10,000,000
----------------------------------------------------
Total................................................ 212,531,000 223,000,000 223,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects reduction of $468,600 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106-554.

bill language

Public safety messages.--The bill contains a provision
(sec. 338) extending the authority for States to use traffic
safety grant funds under Section 402 to produce and place
highway safety pubic service messages in television, radio,
cinema, print media and on the Internet. This same provision
was included in the fiscal year 2001 enacted bill. This year,
the Committee includes additional language which would
designate $15,000,000 of the safety belt use innovative grant
funds to be used for public safety messages to support the
Operation ABC (America Buckles up Children) Mobilizations that
are conducted each year in May and November. During recent
mobilization efforts, more than 10,000 law enforcement agencies
in all 50 States have joined together to call attention to the
need for increased safety belt and child safety seat use and to
deter drunk driving. The Mobilizations have been effective in
helping to increase restraint use, but there are still too many
unrestrained children and adults that are killed and injured in
vehicle crashes, many of which are caused by drunk drivers.
Last year, the Committee directed NHTSA to implement an
innovative demonstration program to promote seat belt usage. A
pilot project in South Carolina in November 2000 used public
safety messages to support the Mobilization, resulting in an
increase in safety belt use from 65 percent to nearly 74
percent. In carrying out this advertising program, NHTSA is
encouraged to continue to work through non-profit safety
organizations on this initiative.

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

Summary of Fiscal Year 2002 Program

The Federal Railroad Administration [FRA] became an
operating administration within the Department of
Transportation on April 1, 1967. It incorporated the Bureau of
Railroad Safety from the Interstate Commerce Commission, the
Office of High Speed Ground Transportation from the Department
of Commerce, and the Alaska Railroad from the Department of the
Interior. The Federal Railroad Administration is responsible
for planning, developing, and administering programs to achieve
safe operating and mechanical practices in the railroad
industry. Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
(Amtrak) and other financial assistance programs to
rehabilitate and improve the railroad industry's physical
infrastructure are also administered by the Federal Railroad
Administration.
The Committee recommends $755,578,000 for the activities of
the Federal Railroad Administration for fiscal year 2002. This
is $48,535,000 more than the budget request.
The following table summarizes the Committee
recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------------ Committee
Program 2002 budget recommendation
2001 enacted \1\ estimate \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety and operations \3\................................. $101,717,000 $111,357,000 $111,357,000
Railroad research and development......................... 25,325,000 28,325,000 30,325,000
Next generation high-speed rail........................... 25,100,000 25,100,000 40,000,000
Alaska railroad rehabilitation \4\........................ 30,000,000 ................ 20,000,000
West Virginia Rail Development............................ 15,000,000 ................ ................
Rhode Island rail development............................. 17,000,000 ................ ................
Capital grants to National Railroad Passenger Corporation. 521,476,000 521,476,000 521,476,000
Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Project................ 20,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000
National Rail Development and Rehabilitation.............. ................ ................ 12,000,000
Amtrak Reform Council \5\................................. 750,000 785,000 420,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources........................... 756,368,000 707,043,000 755,578,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include reduction of $1,642,009 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106-554.
\2\ Fiscal year 2002 budget estimate includes $55,000,000 proposed rail safety user fees.
\3\ Does not include $1,500,000 in Maglev funds from other accounts.
\4\ Fiscal year 2001 includes $10,000,000 transferred from USAF.
\5\ The Amtrak Reform Council is an independent oversight commission. Funding is provided through a general
provision, and is not part of the FRA budget.

User fees.--The Committee denies the Administration's
legislative proposal to impose user fees on rail safety and
research services.

Safety and Operations

Appropriations, 2001 \1\ \2\............................ $101,717,000
Budget estimate, 2002 \3\............................... 111,357,000
Committee recommendation................................ 111,357,000

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $223,777 pursuant to section 1403 of
Public law 106-554.
\2\ Does not include $1,500,000 maglev funds from other accounts.
\3\ Includes $41,000,000 proposed rail safety user fees.

The Safety and Operations account provides support for FRA
rail safety activities and all other administrative and
operating activities related to staff and programs.
Operation Lifesaver.--The Committee notes that the
Department's ``Grade Crossing Safety Action Plan'' established
a goal of reducing the number of crossing collisions and
trespass casualties by 50 percent in 2004. One of the agency's
partners in this effort has been Operation Lifesaver, Inc.
which is a national, non-profit education and awareness program
that focuses on eliminating collisions, fatalities and injuries
at highway-rail grade crossings. Operation Lifesaver utilizes
education to increase public awareness; promotes enforcement of
highway-rail grade crossing traffic laws; and, encourages
engineering research and innovation to improve the safety at
grade crossings. The Committee includes $1,025,000 for
Operation Lifesaver.
Staffing increases.--The FRA has requested 26 new positions
in fiscal year 2002. The Committee recommendation approves the
funding request for these additional positions.

Railroad Research and Development

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................ $25,325,000
Budget estimate, 2002 \2\............................... 28,325,000
Committee recommendation................................ 30,325,000

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $55,715 pursuant to section 1403 of
Public Law 106-554.
\2\ Includes $14,000,000 proposed user fees.

The Federal Railroad Administration's Railroad Research and
Development Program provides for research in the development of
safety and performance standards for high-speed rail and the
evaluation of their role in the Nation's transportation
infrastructure. The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$30,325,000 for railroad research and development, $2,000,000
more than the administration's requested level.

committee recommendation

The Committee recommends the following funding levels for
the Railroad research and development programs:

Equipment, operations, and hazardous materials research. $12,950,000
Track and vehicle-track interaction..................... 9,900,000
Railroad systems safety and security.................... 6,150,000
R&D facilities and equipment............................ 1,325,000

Equipment, operation, and hazardous materials research.--
The Committee recommends a program funding level of
$12,950,000.
Southeastern Transportation Safety Center.--The Committee
notes that the Southeastern Transportation Safety Center in
Meridian, MS is an important regional safety training resource
helping the region's emergency response community to focus on
techniques and skills essential to rail passenger emergency
response. Training at the Center emphasizes instruction in
advanced techniques for fire suppression, passenger rescue, law
enforcement or emergency medical situations. The Committee
provides $475,000 within the funds available to enhance the
center's facilities and capabilities in advanced and
specialized passenger rescue training for emergency responders
and carrier employees. These enhancements should include a
fully functional rail-highway grade crossing, and a specially
constructed low rail trestle and pond for rail passenger water
rescue training.
Track and Vehicle Track Interaction.--The Committee
recommends $9,900,000 for track and vehicle track interaction,
$1,618,000 more than the fiscal year 2001 enacted level and
$1,000,000 more than the President's budget request. The
Committee's recommendation includes funding for track and
components safety research in material and rail inspection and
bridge safety and for vehicle/track interaction safety
standards research. Within these funds, the Committee provides
$2,000,000 in continued support for the Marshall University/
University of Nebraska safety research projects in the areas of
human factors, equipment defects, railroad track and structures
and failures associated with existing train control methods.
Also, within available funds, the Committee includes $2,000,000
for a pilot program of the Integrated Railway Remote
Information Service at the Transportation Technology Center.
This pilot program is expected to enjoy substantial industry
matching contributions. It is designed to demonstrate the
feasibility of using defect detectors across North America.
These detectors will measure safety parameters such as the
forces between the wheels and rails, and physical condition of
axle bearings on rail vehicles. The Integrated Railway Remote
Information Service is an internet-based system designed to
aggregate, interrogate and store data from these field-deployed
detector systems.
Railroad systems safety and security.--The Committee
recommends a program funding level of $6,150,000, $1,000,000
more than the administration's request.
Illinois Grade Crossing Safety.--The Committee is
supportive of an innovative project in Illinois, designed to
establish a comprehensive strategy to help the State of
Illinois and local communities to address rail-grade crossing
safety through voluntary, cooperative education and enforcement
initiatives. This project, under the leadership of the Illinois
Commerce Commission, also seeks to increase awareness of and
participation in private, State, and Federal programs that are
designed to improve crossing safety and to identify appropriate
State and Federal resources that may aid communities in their
efforts. The Committee includes $1,000,000 for this effort.
Railroad freight congestion analysis.--The Committee is
aware of the significant delays currently affecting railroad
freight in and around Chicago, Illinois. It is not uncommon for
freight trains to take 72 hours or more to move cargo through
the metropolitan area. The Committee directs the Secretary, in
cooperation with the Federal Railroad Administration
Administrator and the Chair of the Surface Transportation
Board, to prepare a comprehensive analysis of the railroad
freight congestion problems in the Chicago region, including
possible administrative and legislative solutions and report
the complete findings to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations no later than January 15, 2002.
Passenger rail studies.--The Committee includes $250,000 to
conduct a feasibility study of constructing a passenger rail,
high-speed rail or other passenger surface transportation
system on a statewide basis. In particular, the study will
evaluate the demand and needs of commuters along the existing
infrastructure in the Lincoln and Omaha corridor in Nebraska.
The results of the feasibility study will serve as the basis
for developing short-term and long-term implementation plans
for commuter services. The Committee also includes $300,000 to
study the feasibility of linking Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania to
the proposed Scranton-New York passenger rail line. The
Committee also includes $100,000 to be transferred to Amtrak to
conduct an analysis to determine the cost and feasibility of
implementing high-speed intercity rail service between Los
Angeles and Las Vegas. The study will include an assessment of
existing capacity and the identification of infrastructure
improvements necessary to increase capacity, allow for improved
train speeds, and reduce trip time.

Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program

Section 502 of Public Law 94-210, as amended authorizes
obligation guarantees for meeting the long-term capital needs
of private railroads. Railroads utilize this funding mechanism
to finance major new facilities and rehabilitation or
consolidation of current facilities. No appropriations or new
loan guarantee commitments are proposed in fiscal year 2002.
The Rail Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program,
as established in section 7203 of the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century [TEA21], will enable the Secretary of
Transportation to provide loans and loan guarantees to State
and local governments, Government-sponsored authorities and
corporations, railroads and joint ventures to acquire, improve,
or rehabilitate intermodal or rail equipment or facilities,
including track, bridges, yards, and shops.

Next Generation High-Speed Rail

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................ $25,100,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 25,100,000
Committee recommendation................................ 40,000,000

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $55,220 pursuant to section 1403 of
Public Law 106-554.

The Committee has provided $40,000,000 in general fund
appropriations for the High-Speed Ground Transportation [HSGT]
Program, $14,900,000 more than the President's budget request.
The Committee first provided funding for the Next
Generation High-Speed Rail [NGHSR] Program in fiscal year 1995.
The program funds high-speed rail research, development, and
technology programs that are aimed at demonstrations to foster
high-speed passenger service on corridors throughout the
country.
The Committee recommends the following funding levels for
the Next generation high-speed rail programs:

High-speed train control systems........................ $11,000,000
High-speed non-electric locomotives..................... 6,800,000
Grade crossing hazard mitigation........................ 4,300,000
Track/structures technology............................. 1,300,000
Corridor planning....................................... 9,600,000
Magnetic levitation..................................... 7,000,000

High-speed train control systems.--The Committee has
provided a total of $11,000,000 for positive train control
(PTC) systems and demonstration projects. The Committee
includes $5,000,000 to design, construct and test a PTC system
in the Milwaukee-Madison corridor. This work will include
engineering, applied research and development to demonstrate
the implementation of a positive train control system on a non-
signaled railroad corridor segment between Milwaukee and
Madison, Wisconsin.
Grade crossing hazard mitigation/low-cost innovative
technologies.--The Committee recommends $4,300,000 for grade
crossing hazard mitigation and low-cost innovative technology
initiatives. Within these funds, the Committee includes
$700,000 for the North Carolina Sealed Corridor Initiative
which has been highly effective at identifying and implementing
cost-effective tools to reduce hazards at highway-rail grade
crossings.
Corridor planning.--The Committee includes $9,600,000 for
passenger rail corridor planning. Within the funds provided,
the Committee includes the following allocations:

Gulf Coast high-speed rail corridor..................... $600,000
Florida high-speed rail between Orlando and Tampa....... 4,500,000
California high-speed rail.............................. 4,500,000

Magnetic levitation transportation.--A total of $7,000,000
has been provided for magnetic levitation activities to be
distributed as follows:

Segmented Rail Phased Induction: Electric Magnetic Motor
(Seraphim) technology, NM........................... $500,000
Washington-Baltimore, MD: Environmental impact studies
and preliminary engineering......................... 2,000,000
Nevada-California: Environmental impact studies, design
and engineering..................................... 2,000,000
Greensburgh-Pittsburgh, PA: Environmental impact study.. 2,500,000

Rail-highway crossing hazard eliminations.--Section 1103 of
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21)
provides $5,250,000 for the elimination of rail-highway
crossing hazards. Of these set-aside funds, the following
allocations are made:

Gulf Coast high-speed rail corridor..................... $2,000,000
Chicago Hub high-speed rail corridor between Milwaukee
and Madison, WI..................................... 500,000

Alaska Railroad Rehabilitation

Appropriations, 2001 \1\ \2\............................ $30,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 20,000,000

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $44,000 pursuant to section 1403 of
Public Law 106-554.
\2\ Includes $10,000,000 transferred from USAF pursuant to section 8107
of Public Law 106-259.

The Committee has included a total of $20,000,000 for rail
safety and infrastructure improvements benefiting passenger
operations of the Alaska railroad. This railroad extends 498
miles from Seward through Anchorage, the largest city in
Alaska, to the city of Fairbanks, and east to the town of North
Pole and Eielson Air Force Base. It carries both passengers and
freight, and provides a critical transportation link for
passengers and cargo traveling through difficult terrain and
harsh climatic conditions.

National Rail Development and Rehabilitation

The bill authorizes the Federal Railroad Administration to
make grants and enter into contracts for the development and
rehabilitation of freight and passenger rail infrastructure.
The Committee includes $12,000,000 for this program. Within
these funds, the Committee recommends $1,700,000 for the
Central Valley Rail line project to establish a short line from
Sigurd/Salina to the Union Pacific main line at Levan, Utah;
$5,000,000 for the design and construction of a passenger rail
station at the General Mitchell International Airport in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin; $3,000,000 for track relocation, track
construction and grade crossing separation in Greenwood, MS;
and $2,300,000 for the rehabilitation of the Minnesota Valley
Regional Rail Authority.

Capital Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................ $521,476,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 521,476,000
Committee recommendation................................ 521,476,000

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $1,142,247 pursuant to section 1403 of
Public Law 106-554.

For fiscal year 2002, the administration has requested an
appropriation of $521,476,000 for Amtrak capital funding with
the same flexibility in spending its capital grant as provided
to transit grantees.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $521,476,000 for
Amtrak capital grants for fiscal year 2002. The amount provided
is the same as the President's request and the same as the
fiscal year 2001 appropriation. Consistent with the
Administration's budget request, the Committee grants Amtrak
the authority to use all of this funding immediately upon the
enactment of the bill.
The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 (ARAA),
Public Law 105-134, authorized a total of $5,200,000,000 over a
5 year period in funding for Amtrak. The act also required the
railroad to reach operating self-sufficiency by fiscal year
2003. Together with the funding included in the Committee
recommendation, Amtrak will have received $2,200,000,000 of the
$5,200,000,000 authorized by the end of 2002.
During the authorization period covered by the ARAA, Amtrak
has made steady progress in its goal of achieving operating
self-sufficiency. Its overall ridership and ticket revenues
during this period have continued to grow. Amtrak's ridership
has increased 14.4 percent between 1996 and 2000. It is
expected to grow another 6 percent in 2001. Over the same
period, Amtrak's ticket revenues increased 29.8 percent. Those
revenues are expected to grow by another 10.9 percent in 2001.
The Committee is pleased to see continued growth in Amtrak's
ticket revenues and ridership and expects those revenues to
continue to grow with the long delayed introduction of the
Acela Express Service beginning in calender year 2002.

As part of its mission to achieve operating self-
sufficiency, Amtrak has aggressively sought to increase its
revenues from non-passenger operations. Such non-passenger
revenue grew by more than 15 percent between 1999 and 2000.
However, the amount of revenues in this area has not grown as
fast as Amtrak's business plan had hoped.
At the same time as Amtrak's overall revenues have
increased, costs have also increased. Operating expenses for
the railroad grew 9.1 percent over the 1999-2000 level. The
Committee is concerned by testimony by the DOT Inspector
General that Amtrak has yet to fully define some of the cost
saving measures that will be necessary if the railroad is to
achieve its self-sufficiency goal. The delay in the delivery of
Amtrak's Acela Express trainsets and the associated delay in
launching the Acela service has endangered Amtrak's overall
finances. Just recently, Amtrak was required to collateralize
part of its assets in Penn Station, New York in order to obtain
$300,000,000 in operating funds for the current fiscal year.
The Committee is greatly concerned over Amtrak's tenuous
financial condition. In testimony before the Committee, the
President of Amtrak testified that if the Committee fully
funded the President's budget request of $521,476,000 as it
has, there will be no risk of Amtrak going bankrupt within the
coming fiscal year. Even so, the Committee will continue to
carefully monitor Amtrak's financial condition as well as its
efforts to achieve operating self-sufficiency by 2003.

Amtrak Reform Council

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................ $750,000
Budget estimate, 2002 \2\............................... 785,000
Committee recommendation................................ 420,000

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $1,650 pursuant to section 1403 of
Public Law 106-554.
\2\ The Council is an independent entity. Its funding is presented
within the FRA for display purposes only.

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $420,000 for
necessary expenses of the Amtrak Reform Council [ARC]. Initial
funding for the ARC was provided in the fiscal year 1998
supplemental appropriations bill, Public Law 105-174; in the
fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 transportation appropriations
acts, $450,000, $750,000, and $750,000, respectively, was
appropriated for the Council. For fiscal year 2002, the
administration has requested an appropriation of $785,000.
Because the Council is an independent commission, the
Committee's appropriation is not provided within the FRA's
budget, but is provided in a general provision (sec. 330) of
the bill.
The ARC was established by the Amtrak Reform and
Accountability Act of 1997 [ARAA]. The Council consists of 11
members, including four Senate appointees, four House
appointees, two Presidential appointees, and the Secretary of
Transportation. Under the ARAA, the responsibilities of the ARC
include evaluating Amtrak's performance and making
recommendations to Congress and Amtrak for achieving further
cost containment, productivity improvements, and financial
reforms. In addition, fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill
language expanded the Council's statutory responsibilities to
include its views on any routes or services that Amtrak's route
analysis data indicate should be closed or realigned.
The ARC is a temporary commission. By the end of fiscal
year 2002, the Council must make a determination on whether or
not Amtrak can meet the financial goals outlined in the ARAA
(though the Council may make a finding before the end of the
current authorization). If the ARC determines these goals
cannot be met, they must then submit a restructuring plan, and
Amtrak must submit a liquidation plan.

pennsylvania station redevelopment project

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................ $20,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 20,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 20,000,000

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $44,000 pursuant to section 1403 of
Public Law 106-554.

In 2000, an advance appropriation of $20,000,000 was
provided for each fiscal year 2001, 2002, and 2003. These funds
support the redevelopment of the Pennsylvania Station in New
York City, including the renovation of the James A. Farley Post
Office building as a train station and commercial center, and
basic upgrades to Pennsylvania Station.

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

Summary of Fiscal Year 2002 Program

The Federal Transit Administration was established as a
component of the Department of Transportation by Reorganization
Plan No. 2 of 1968, effective July 1, 1968, which transferred
most of the functions and programs under the Federal Transit
Act of 1964, as amended (78 Stat. 302; 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.),
from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The
missions of the Federal Transit Administration are: to assist
in the development of improved mass transportation facilities,
equipment, techniques, and methods; to encourage the planning
and establishment of urban and rural transportation services
needed for economical and desirable development; to provide
mobility for transit dependents in both metropolitan and rural
areas; to maximize productivity of transportation systems; and
to provide assistance to State and local governments and their
instrumentalities in financing such services and systems.
The current authorization for the programs funded by the
Federal Transit Administration is contained in the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.
Under the Committee recommendation, a total program level
of $6,847,000,000 would be provided for the programs of the
Federal Transit Administration for fiscal year 2002, which is
$100,000,000 more than the obligation limitation authorized
under the mass transit category in TEA21. This funding is
comprised of $1,449,200,000 in direct appropriations of general
funds and $5,397,800,000 in limitations on contract authority.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations compared to fiscal year 2000 and the
administration's request:

[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Program 2001 enacted \1\ 2002 estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses................................ 64,000 67,000 67,000
Formula grants \2\..................................... 3,294,000 3,592,000 3,592,000
University transportation research..................... 6,000 6,000 6,000
Transit planning and research.......................... 110,000 116,000 116,000
Capital investment grants \2\ \3\...................... 2,700,500 2,841,000 2,941,000
Job access and reverse commute grants.................. 100,000 125,000 125,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................ 6,274,500 6,747,000 6,847,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect rescissions totaling $13,803,900 for the 0.22 percent rescission pursuant to section 1403
of Public Law 106-554 and $1,646,816,709 in FHWA flex funding .
\2\ Fiscal year 2001 reflects transfer of $50,000,000 from Formula grants to Capital investment grants and
$1,000,000 from Formula grants to the OIG pursuant to Public Law 106-346.
\3\ Fiscal year 2001 includes $4,500,000 direct appropriation pursuant to sections 1105, 1107, and 1123 of
Public Law 106-554.

Administrative Expenses

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General fund Trust fund
Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................ $12,800,000 $51,200,000 $64,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 13,400,000 53,600,000 67,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 13,400,000 53,600,000 67,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect rescission of $140,800 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106-554.

The Committee recommends a total of $67,000,000 in budget
resources funds for administrative expenses.

Formula Grants

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General fund Trust fund Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001 \1\.................................. $618,000,000 $2,676,000,000 $3,294,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002..................................... 718,400,000 2,873,600,000 3,592,000,000
Committee recommendation.................................. 718,400,000 2,873,600,000 3,592,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects $50,000,000 transferred to capital investment grants and $1,000,000 transferred to the OIG; does
not reflect rescission of $7,246,800 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106-554.

Formula grants to States and local agencies funded under
this heading fall into four categories: urbanized area formula
grants (U.S.C. sec. 5307); clean fuels formula grants (U.S.C.
sec. 5308); formula grants and loans for special needs of
elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities (U.S.C.
sec. 5310); and formula grants for non-urbanized areas (U.S.C.
sec. 5311). In addition, setasides of formula funds are
directed to: a grant program for intercity bus operators to
finance Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA] accessibility
costs; and the Alaska Railroad for improvements to its
passenger operations. The Committee also recommends that
$5,000,000 be provided for the Salt Lake City transit needs for
the VIII Paralympiad for the Disabled. The Committee intends
that use of these funds be for the transportation systems for
athletes, media, spectators and other officials associated with
the VIII Paralympiad for the Disabled.
Within the total funding level of $3,592,000,000 for fiscal
year 2002, the statutory distribution of these formula grants
is allocated among these categories as follows:

Urbanized areas (sec. 5307)............................. $3,220,601,506
Clean fuels (sec. 5308)................................. 50,000,000
Elderly and disabled (sec. 5310)........................ 84,724,801
Nonurbanized areas (sec. 5311).......................... 224,873,743
Over-the-Road Bus Program............................... 6,950,000
Alaska railroad......................................... 4,849,950

Section 3007 of TEA21 amends U.S.C. 5307, urbanized formula
grants, by striking the authorization to utilize these funds
for operating costs, but includes a specific provision allowing
the Secretary to make operating grants to urbanized areas with
a population of less than 200,000. Generally, urbanized formula
grants may be used to fund capital projects, and to finance
planning and improvement costs of equipment, facilities, and
associated capital maintenance used in mass transportation. All
urbanized areas greater than 200,000 in population are
statutorily required to use 1 percent of their annual formula
grants on enhancements, which include landscaping, public art,
bicycle storage, and connections to parks.
The following table displays the State-by-State
distribution of the formula program funds within each of the
program categories:

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, FISCAL YEAR 2002 GUARANTEED LEVEL APPORTIONMENT FOR FORMULA PROGRAMS (BY STATE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 5310
Section 5307 Section 5311 elderly and Total formula
State urbanized area nonurbanized persons with programs
area disabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama......................................... $14,040,178 $5,344,661 $1,465,034 $20,849,873
Alaska.......................................... \1\ 7,619,647 797,004 203,762 8,620,413
American Samoa.................................. .............. 113,598 53,101 166,699
Arizona......................................... 36,086,127 2,339,752 1,287,919 39,713,798
Arkansas........................................ 5,520,952 4,272,834 1,014,025 10,807,811
California...................................... 518,704,526 10,428,595 8,077,729 537,210,850
Colorado........................................ 40,928,704 2,226,089 991,811 44,146,604
Connecticut..................................... 55,160,193 2,019,272 1,141,158 58,320,623
Delaware........................................ 7,329,543 503,760 323,821 8,157,124
District of Columbia............................ 29,256,884 .............. 321,183 29,578,067
Florida......................................... 156,776,788 6,703,961 5,440,466 168,921,215
Georgia......................................... 55,198,599 7,814,463 1,909,167 64,922,229
Guam............................................ .............. 323,387 135,314 458,701
Hawaii.......................................... 25,789,482 877,054 420,603 27,087,139
Idaho........................................... 3,300,878 1,769,431 431,176 5,501,485
Illinois........................................ 217,131,921 7,169,333 3,505,594 227,806,848
Indiana......................................... 34,806,454 6,925,413 1,824,126 43,555,993
Iowa............................................ 9,303,320 4,454,494 1,092,507 14,850,321
Kansas.......................................... 8,541,490 3,543,409 910,746 12,995,645
Kentucky........................................ 18,577,689 5,849,395 1,402,706 25,829,790
Louisiana....................................... 29,765,457 4,837,873 1,407,347 36,010,677
Maine........................................... 2,367,920 2,334,462 547,089 5,249,471
Maryland........................................ 80,384,314 2,914,464 1,414,153 84,712,931
Massachusetts................................... 124,736,660 3,123,420 2,050,913 129,910,993
Michigan........................................ 66,414,415 8,458,755 2,994,685 77,867,855
Minnesota....................................... 38,624,294 4,867,525 1,434,541 44,926,360
Mississippi..................................... 4,932,006 4,750,072 984,235 10,666,313
Missouri........................................ 35,603,515 5,669,413 1,850,314 43,123,242
Montana......................................... 2,497,778 1,433,378 392,963 4,324,119
Nebraska........................................ 8,447,964 2,162,787 632,725 11,243,476
Nevada.......................................... 21,339,036 706,117 462,562 22,507,715
New Hampshire................................... 3,499,595 1,869,613 435,225 5,804,433
New Jersey...................................... 189,133,645 2,673,150 2,468,641 194,275,436
New Mexico...................................... 7,078,357 2,101,501 552,626 9,732,484
New York........................................ 546,166,788 9,409,809 5,762,287 561,338,884
North Carolina.................................. 29,462,044 9,995,997 2,175,630 41,633,671
North Dakota.................................... 2,434,856 1,060,047 329,769 3,824,672
Northern Marianas............................... .............. 105,272 52,833 158,105
Ohio............................................ 92,258,624 10,176,620 3,659,887 106,095,131
Oklahoma........................................ 11,565,275 4,350,400 1,206,115 17,121,790
Oregon.......................................... 29,577,270 3,454,256 1,119,077 34,150,603
Pennsylvania.................................... 148,792,087 11,352,125 4,394,371 164,538,583
Puerto Rico..................................... 52,797,914 3,392,373 1,059,960 57,250,247
Rhode Island.................................... 10,331,636 434,568 483,450 11,249,654
South Carolina.................................. 11,616,676 5,003,046 1,164,780 17,784,502
South Dakota.................................... 1,756,431 1,292,115 358,657 3,407,203
Tennessee....................................... 23,225,955 6,458,361 1,735,610 31,419,926
Texas........................................... 170,177,230 13,635,398 4,539,494 188,352,122
Utah............................................ 20,796,268 979,495 512,817 22,288,580
Vermont......................................... 882,731 1,155,262 290,967 2,328,960
Virgin Islands.................................. .............. 247,264 138,096 385,360
Virginia........................................ 66,268,007 5,725,963 1,806,838 73,800,808
Washington...................................... 88,572,612 4,012,110 1,617,182 94,201,904
West Virginia................................... 4,255,733 3,411,450 842,548 8,509,731
Wisconsin....................................... 38,268,062 5,894,585 1,651,726 45,814,373
Wyoming......................................... 1,219,667 824,424 242,740 2,286,831
Subtotal.................................. 3,209,324,197 223,749,375 84,724,801 3,517,798,373
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oversight....................................... 16,127,259 1,124,368 .............. 17,251,627
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... 3,225,451,456 224,873,743 84,724,801 3,535,050,000
===============================================================
Clean Fuels..................................... .............. .............. .............. 50,000,000
Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility................. .............. .............. .............. 6,950,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total............................... .............. .............. .............. 3,592,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $4,825,700 for the Alaska Railroad.

Over-the-road buses.--The Committee has included $6,950,000
in fiscal year 2002 for the over-the-road accessibility
program. These funds are intended to assist over-the-road bus
operators in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act
accessibility requirements. Additionally, the Committee has
included bill language (sec. 339) expanding the exemption from
Federal axle weight restrictions that apply only to public
transit passenger buses to all over-the-road buses. The
Committee is aware that over-the-road buses, like urban transit
buses, have been carrying progressively more weight on each
axle due to the requirements necessary to accommodate safety,
environmental and accessibility concerns. Transit buses
received an exemption from axle weight requirements in 1991,
the Committee believes that the over-the-road bus industry
should receive equal consideration. Last year, the Committee
included language providing a similar axle weight exemption for
over-the-road buses. The bill also requires a study on the
applicability of maximum weight limitation to both over-the-
road buses and public transit vehicles is directed to be
submitted to Congress no later than 18 months after enactment
of this Act.

University Transportation Research

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General fund Trust fund Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001 \1\........................................ $1,200,000 $4,800,000 $6,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002........................................... 1,200,000 4,800,000 6,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................ 1,200,000 4,800,000 6,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect rescission of $13,200 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106-554.

Section 5505 of TEA21 provides authorization for the
university transportation research program. The purpose of the
university transportation research program is to become a
national resource and focal point for the support and conduct
of research and training concerning the transportation of
passengers and property. Funds provided under the FTA
university transportation research program are transferred to
and managed by the Research and Special Programs Administration
(RSPA), combined with a transfer from the Federal Highway
Administration of $26,500,000. The transit university
transportation research program funds are statutorily available
only to the following universities: University of Minnesota,
Northwestern University, Morgan State University, and North
Carolina State University.
The Committee action provides $6,000,000 for the university
transportation research program, the same level as provided in
fiscal year 2001.

Transit Planning and Research

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General fund Trust fund Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001 \1\........................................ $22,200,000 $87,800,000 $110,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002 \2\....................................... 23,000,000 93,000,000 116,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................ 23,000,000 93,000,000 116,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect rescission of $242,000 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106-554 and $54,280,827 in
FHWA flex funding transferred to FTA.

The Committee action provides $116,000,000 for transit
planning and research. The bill contains language specifying
that $55,422,400 shall be available for the metropolitan
planning program; $5,250,000 for the rural transit assistance
program; $31,500,000 for the national planning and research
program; $11,577,600 for the State planning and research
program; $8,250,000 for transit cooperative research; and
$4,000,000 for the National Transit Institute at Rutgers
University.
The following table summarizes the Committee
recommendation:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------- Committee
2001 program 2002 budget recommendation
level \1\ estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan planning....... $52,113,600 $55,422,400 $55,422,400
Rural transit assistance 5,250,000 5,250,000 5,250,000
program....................
State planning and research 10,886,400 11,577,600 11,577,600
program....................
Transit cooperative research 8,250,000 8,250,000 8,250,000
program....................
National Transit Institute.. 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
National planning and 29,500,000 31,500,000 31,500,000
research program...........
-------------------------------------------
Total................. 110,000,000 116,000,000 116,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 2001 does not reflect rescission of $242,000 pursuant to
section 1403 of Public Law 106-554 and $54,280,827 in FHWA flex
funding transferred to FTA.

NATIONAL PLANNING AND RESEARCH PROGRAM

The Committee recommendation includes transit planning and
research grants from the national program that were authorized
in section 3012 of the Transportation Equity Act for Fiscal
Year 2001:

Project ACTION.......................................... $3,000,000

Support in fiscal year 2002 is also provided for a number
of important initiatives and Federal Transit Administration
priorities, including:

North Dakota State University transit center for small
urban
areas............................................... $400,000
Georgia Regional Transportation Authority/Southern
California Association of Governments transit trip
planning partnership................................ 500,000
Center for Composites Manufacturing..................... 1,100,000
Electric Transit Vehicle Institute (ETVI) outreach and
research activities................................. 500,000
Washington State WestStart innovative transit vehicle
initiative.......................................... 2,000,000
West Virginia transit vehicle exhaust emissions
evaluation initiative............................... 1,400,000
Missouri Soybean Association biodiesel transit
demonstration....................................... 1,000,000

Dollar coin fare study.--Within the funds provided, the
Committee directs the Administrator to conduct a study on the
benefits and feasibility of having large transit and toll road
systems use fare card or coin technology that recognizes and
accepts the Sacagawea Dollar Coins by April 1, 2002.

Trust Fund Share of Expenses

(Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

(highway trust fund)

Appropriations, 2001.................................... $5,016,600,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 5,397,800,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,397,800,000

For fiscal year 2002, the Committee has provided
$5,397,800,000 in liquidating cash for the trust fund share of
transit expenses associated with the following programs:
administrative expenses, formula grants, university
transportation research, transit planning and research, job
access and reverse commute grants, and capital investment
grants. This level of funds is equal to the total budget
authority from the highway trust fund inside the transit
firewall as outlined in the transportation discretionary
spending guarantee subtitle of the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century.

Capital Investment Grants

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General funds Trust funds Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001 \1\..................................... $579,200,000 $2,121,300,000 $2,700,500,000
Budget estimate, 2002........................................ 568,200,000 2,272,800,000 2,841,000,000
Committee recommendation..................................... 668,200,000 2,272,800,000 2,941,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $50,000,000 transferred from formula grants pursuant to Public Law 106-346; also includes
$4,500,000 Trust Fund direct appropriation pursuant to sections 1105, 1107, and 1123 of Public Law 106-554,
does not reflect rescission of $5,941,100 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106-554.

Section 5309 of 49 U.S.C. authorizes discretionary grants
or loans to States and local public bodies and agencies thereof
to be used in financing mass transportation investments.
Investments may include construction of new fixed guideway
systems and extensions to existing guideway systems; major bus
fleet expansions and bus facility construction; and fixed
guideway expenditures for existing systems.
The Committee action provides a level of $2,941,000,000.
Within this total, $2,272,800,000 is from the ``Mass transit''
account of the highway trust fund, and no more than
$668,200,000 shall be appropriated from general funds. The
following table summarizes the Committee recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
2001 program 2002 budget Committee
level estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bus and bus facilities.......................................... $579,700,000 $568,200,000 $568,200,000
Fixed guideway modernization.................................... 1,058,400,000 1,136,400,000 1,136,400,000
New systems and new extensions.................................. 1,062,400,000 1,136,400,000 1,236,400,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 2,700,500,000 2,841,000,000 2,941,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Three-year availability of section 3 discretionary funds.--
Unobligated discretionary bus and new starts funds from
projects funded in the fiscal year 1999 Transportation
appropriations bill (Public Law 105-277) and previous acts are
available for reallocation in fiscal year 2002. As in previous
years, a general provision (sec. 314) is included which limits
funding availability for fiscal year 2002 capital investment
funds, except fixed-guideway modernization funds, to 3 years
from enactment.
Limited extensions of discretionary funds.--There have been
occasions when the Committee has extended the availability of
capital investment funds. These extensions are granted on a
case by case basis and, in nearly all instances, are due to
circumstances that were unforeseen by the project's sponsor.
The availability of these particular funds are intended for one
additional year, absent further congressional direction.
The Committee directs the FTA not to reallocate funds
provided in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999
Transportation appropriations bills for the following projects:
--Chambersburg, Pennsylvania intermodal facility and transit
vehicles
--Northern New Mexico park and ride facilities
--Albuquerque, New Mexico--Alvarado Multi-modal transit
center
--Albuquerque, New Mexico light rail project
--New York, New York--Midtown West Intermodal Ferry Terminal
Project
--Birmingham-Jefferson County, Alabama buses
--Prichard, Alabama bus and bus facilities
--King County, Washington--Elliot Bay water taxi
--Morgantown, West Virginia fixed guideway modernization
project
--Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania intermodal facility
--Towamencin Township, Pennsylvania intermodal bus
transportation center
--Harrisburg, Pennsylvania--Capital Area Transit/Corridor One
project
--Philadelphia-Reading, Pennsylvania--SEPTA Schuylkill Valley
Metro
--Washington, District of Columbia--intermodal transportation
center
--Burlington-Essex Junction Commuter Rail, Vermont
Bill language.--The bill contains a general provision (sec.
348) reprogramming funds provided in previous fiscal years from
the following projects for the purposes specified below:
--Northern New Mexico park and ride facilities (fiscal year
1999)--to be made available for the Northern New Mexico
park and ride facilities and State of New Mexico, buses
and bus-related facilities.
--Northern New Mexico Transit Express/Park and Rides buses
(fiscal year 2000)--to be made available for the
Northern New Mexico park and ride facilities and State
of New Mexico, buses and bus-related facilities.
The bill also includes another general provision (sec. 344)
which clarifies the local match requirements pertaining to a
transit project in Clark County, Nevada.

bus and bus facilities

The Committee recommendation for bus and bus facilities
funding is $568,200,000. These funds may be used to replace,
rehabilitate, and purchase buses and related equipment and to
construct bus-related facilities. Funds for bus and bus
facilities shall be distributed as follows:

Project Amount

Alabama rural buses, Alabama............................ $9,000,000
Alabama State Dock intermodal passenger & Monroe Park
freight terminal, Alabama........................... 5,000,000
Alabama-Tombigbee Regional Commission buses and vans,
Alabama............................................. 500,000
Albuquerque west side bus and bus facility, New Mexico.. 5,000,000
Albuquerque Alvarado transportation center (phase II)... 3,000,000
Anchorage bus and rail transfer facility, Alaska........ 3,000,000
Area VII Agency on Aging bus facility, Montana.......... 1,100,000
Arkansas Transit Association small urban and rural
transit systems buses and bus facilities, Arkansas.. 10,000,000
Atlanta, Metro Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority clean
fuel buses, Georgia................................. 8,000,000
Auburn intermodal facility and parking garage, Maine.... 500,000
Averdeen Ride Line buses, South Dakota.................. 100,000
Baton Rouge multi-modal transportation and parking
facility, Louisiana................................. 8,000,000
Billings buses and transfer facility, Montana........... 3,000,000
Birmingham-Jefferson County Transit Authority buses,
Alabama............................................. 2,000,000
Brazos Transit ADA compliant bus, Texas................. 800,000
Brazos Transit buses for Texas A&M University, Texas.... 1,500,000
Brazos Transit buses, intermodal facility, and parking
facility, Texas..................................... 1,500,000
Brazos Transit park and ride facility, Texas............ 800,000
Bridgeport intermodal corridor project, Connecticut..... 8,000,000
Brockton Intermodal transit center, Massachusetts....... 1,000,000
Brookhaven multi-modal facility, Mississippi............ 2,000,000
Austin Metro bus, Texas................................. 1,400,000
El Paso bus, Texas...................................... 1,100,000
Buffalo County bus and maintenance facility, Nebraska... 75,000
Butler County transit facility, Ohio.................... 2,000,000
Butte-Silver Bow Bus facility, Montana.................. 500,000
Callowhill bus garage replacement, Pennsylvania......... 6,000,000
Capital Area Transportation Authority articulated buses,
Michi-
gan................................................. 4,000,000
Cedar Rapids intermodal facility, Iowa.................. 4,630,000
Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority bus
and bus facilities, Florida......................... 2,000,000
Central Kenai Peninsula Transit buses and bus
facilities, Alaska.................................. 500,000
Central New York Regional Transportation Authority, New
York................................................ 4,000,000
Cherry Street Project multi-modal facility, Indiana..... 1,500,000
City of Kent facility, Washington....................... 900,000
Clackamas County south corridor transit improvements,
Oregon.............................................. 7,000,000
Clark County Public Transit park and ride facility,
Washington.......................................... 2,500,000
Dayton, Wright-Dunbar Transit Access Project, Ohio...... 3,200,000
Detroit Department of Transportation bus replacement,
Michigan............................................ 5,000,000
East Haddam transportation vehicles and transit
facilities, Connecticut............................. 420,000
Everett Transit buses and vans, Washington.............. 1,750,000
Fairbanks clean fuel buses and bus facility, Alaska..... 1,500,000
Flint Mass Transportation Authority replacement buses
and vans, Michigan.................................. 2,000,000
Folsom railroad block project, California............... 1,250,000
Fort Clatsop Shuttling system, Oregon................... 2,500,000
Georgia Regional Transit Authority express bus program,
Geor-
gia................................................. 10,200,000
Grand Rapids Interurban Transit Partnership
transportation center, Michigan..................... 6,000,000
Granite State Clean Cities Coalition CNG buses and
facilities, New Hampshire........................... 1,500,000
Greater Glens Falls Transit bus facility renovation, New
York................................................ 500,000
Greater Minnesota Transit Authority bus, paratransit and
transit hub, Minnesota.............................. 7,525,000
Hampton Roads regional buses, Virginia.................. 7,000,000
Harrison county multi-modal facilities and shuttle
service, Mississippi................................ 8,000,000
Hartford-New Britain bus rapid transitway, Connecticut.. 15,000,000
Hattiesburg intermodal facility, Mississippi............ 4,000,000
Hershey intermodal transportation center, Pennsylvania.. 2,000,000
Hillsborough Area Transit Authority bus and bus
facilities, Flor-
ida................................................. 4,000,000
Honolulu bus and bus facilities, Hawaii................. 10,000,000
Huntsville Public Transit intermodal facility, Alabama.. 1,000,000
I-5 Trade Corridor/99th St facility, Washington......... 4,000,000
Indiana bus consortium, bus and bus facilities, Indiana. 5,000,000
Indianapolis downtown transit facility, Indiana......... 4,000,000
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Line 22
articulated buses, CA............................... 500,000
San Joaquin Regional Transit District bus facility,
California.......................................... 500,000
Orange County buses, California......................... 500,000
Contra Costa Connection buses, California............... 250,000
Palmdale Transportation Center, California.............. 350,000
Palo Alto intermodal transit center, California......... 250,000
Costa Mesa CNG facility, California..................... 150,000
Livermore park and ride, California..................... 250,000
Issaquah Highlands park and ride, Washington............ 1,000,000
Jackson multi-modal transportation center, Mississippi.. 2,000,000
Kalamazoo Metro Transit System bus transfer center,
Michigan............................................ 1,800,000
Kansas City Area Transit Authority bus and radio
equipment, Missouri................................. 10,000,000
King County Eastgate Park and Ride, Washington.......... 2,500,000
Las Cruces buses, New Mexico............................ 1,000,000
Las Cruces intermodal transit facility, New Mexico...... 2,000,000
Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority buses and
facility, California................................ 1,500,000
Long Island Rail Road Jamaica intermodal facilities, New
York................................................ 4,000,000
Los Angeles Metro Transportation Authority rapid buses
and bus facilities, California...................... 5,000,000
Louisiana State University, intermodal parking facility,
Louisi-
ana................................................. 2,000,000
Lowell Regional Transport Authority, new bus hub,
Massachu-
setts............................................... 1,000,000
Macon terminal intermodal station, Georgia.............. 1,500,000
Main Street multi-modal transportation center, Virginia. 5,000,000
Marquette County Transit Authority bus and bus facility,
Michi-
gan................................................. 1,750,000
Memphis International Airport intermodal facility,
Tennessee........................................... 3,000,000
Miami beach Development electrowave shuttle service,
Florida............................................. 3,000,000
Mobile Waterfront terminal, Alabama..................... 5,000,000
Mobridge Senior Citizen handicap-accessible vehicles,
South Dakota........................................ 60,000
Monterey-Salinas Transit facility, California........... 1,500,000
Mukilteo multi-modal terminal and ferry, Washington..... 1,450,000
Murray-Calloway Transit Authority bus facility, Kentucky 200,000
Muskegon Area Transit System facility, Michigan......... 1,700,000
Nassau University Medical Center bus service extension,
New
York................................................ 1,000,000
New Rochelle intermodal center, New York................ 1,500,000
Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority buses, New
York................................................ 2,560,000
North Puget Sound Intermodal facilities and
improvements, Washington............................ 400,000
OATS bus and bus facilities, Missouri................... 2,800,000
Oglala Sioux Tribe bus and bus facilities, South Dakata. 2,500,000
Phoenix Regional Public Transportation Authority
facility maintenance, Arizona....................... 7,500,000
Pierce Transit buses, vans, and equipment, Washington... 1,000,000
Port Authority of Allegheny buses, Pennsylvania......... 2,000,000
Port McKenzie bus and bus facilities, Alaska............ 2,000,000
Providence transportation information center, Rhode
Island.............................................. 2,000,000
Ravalli County Council on Aging bus facility, Montana... 625,000
Regional Transport Commission of Southern Nevada bus
rapid transit, Nevada............................... 6,000,000
Reno Bus Rapid Transit high-capacity articulated buses,
Nevada.............................................. 2,000,000
Reno/Sparks bus and bus facilities, Nevada.............. 8,000,000
Rosebud Sioux Tribe transportation vans, South Dakota... 55,000
San Antonio VIA Metro Transit Authority clean fuel
buses,
Texas............................................... 3,000,000
San Francisco Municipal bus and bus facilities,
California.......................................... 6,500,000
Santa Fe buses and bus facilities, New Mexico........... 2,000,000
Ship Creek pedestrian and intermodal facility, and
parking garage, Alaska.............................. 5,000,000
Sierra Madre Villa & Chinatown intermodal transportation
centers, California................................. 3,500,000
Snohomish County transit buses and bus facilities,
Washington.......................................... 5,000,000
Sound Transit regional transit hubs, Washington......... 10,000,000
South Bend Public Transit bus fleet replacement, Indiana 4,500,000
South Florida Regional Transit buses and bus facilities,
Florida............................................. 8,000,000
Southwest Missouri State University intermodal transfer
facility, Missouri.................................. 5,000,000
Springfield bus transfer station, Oregon................ 4,000,000
Springfield intermodal facility, Massachusetts.......... 4,000,000
St. Bernard Parish intermodal facility, Louisiana....... 2,000,000
St. Louis Bi-State Development Authority bus and bus
facilities, Missouri................................ 8,000,000
Statewide buses and bus facilities, Alabama............. 3,000,000
Statewide bus and bus facilities, Colorado.............. 8,000,000
Statewide bus and bus facilities, Kentucky.............. 5,000,000
Statewide bus and bus facilities, Michigan.............. 3,500,000
Statewide bus and bus facilities, New Mexico............ 2,000,000
Statewide bus and bus facilities, Ohio.................. 6,000,000
Statewide bus and bus facilities, Tennessee............. 9,000,000
Statewide bus and bus facilities, West Virginia......... 4,000,000
Statewide bus replacement, Iowa......................... 7,000,000
Statewide bus, bus facilities, and rural transit
vehicles, North Dakota.............................. 3,900,000
Statewide buses and bus facilities, Delaware............ 5,000,000
Statewide buses and bus facilities, Illinois............ 8,950,000
Statewide buses and bus facilities, Kansas.............. 3,500,000
Statewide buses and bus facilities, Maryland............ 12,000,000
Statewide buses and bus facilities, North Carolina...... 5,000,000
Statewide buses and bus facilities, Rhode Island........ 8,000,000
Statewide buses and bus facilities, Wisconsin........... 12,000,000
Statewide buses and bus facilities, Wyoming............. 5,000,000
Statewide buses and bus facility, South Carolina........ 9,000,000
Statewide buses, bus facilities, and equipment, Idaho... 3,500,000
Statewide buses, Maine.................................. 5,000,000
Statewide regional intermodal transportation centers,
Utah................................................ 7,000,000
Statewide small transit systems, buses, and bus
facilities, Washington.............................. 3,500,000
Seward Mass Transit bus and terminal facility, Alaska... 200,000
TEA21 Setaside (Altoona and Georgetown)................. 7,850,000
Tompkins County replacement buses, New York............. 2,000,000
Topeka Transit transfer center, Kansas.................. 500,000
Tuscon intermodal center, Arizona....................... 2,000,000
Twin Cities metro transit bus, bus facilities, and fare
card system, Minnesota.............................. 6,000,000
University of North Alabama transit projects, Alabama... 2,000,000
Vermont Public Transit alternative fuel/hybrid bus and
facility, Vermont................................... 4,000,000
Village of Taos Ski Valley bus and bus facilities, New
Mexico.............................................. 500,000
West Lafayette Transit Project bus and bus facilities,
Indiana............................................. 1,000,000
Wilkes-Barre Intermodal facility, Pennsylvania.......... 2,000,000
Wrangle Hill buses and maintenance facility, Delaware... 6,000,000

Illinois Statewide Buses.--The Committee provides
$8,950,000 to the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT)
for Section 5309 Bus and Bus Facilities grants. The Committee
expects IDOT to fund the following projects: (1) $750,000 to
Western Illinois University for Go WEST, a University transit
bus system; (2) $750,000 to the Rockford Mass transit District
for a feasibility study and preconstruction work on the
proposed Eastside Transfer Center; (3) at least $4,500,000 for
Downstate Illinois replacement buses in Champaign-Urbana,
Danville, Macomb, Madison County, Quincy, River Valley, Rock
Island, and Springfield.
Washington Statewide Small Transit System, Buses & Bus
Facilities.--The Committee provides $3,500,000 to the
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) for
Section 5309 Bus and Bus Facilities grants. The Committee
expects WSDOT to fund the following projects: (1) $440,000 to
Clallam Transit. (2) $928,000 to Grays Harbor Transportation.
(3) $632,000 to Island Transit. (4) $324,000 to Link Transit.
(5) $385,000 to Mason County Transportation Authority.
(6)$750,000 to Valley Transit.

fixed guideway modernization

The Committee recommends a total of $1,136,400,000 for the
modernization of existing rail transit systems. Under TEA21 all
of the funds are distributed by formula. The following table
itemizes the fiscal year 2001 rail modernization allocations by
State:

Fiscal year 2002 section 5309 fixed guideway modernization

Fiscal year 2002
State budget

Alaska.................................................. \1\ $7,047,502
Arizona................................................. 1,644,697
California.............................................. 126,085,672
Colorado................................................ 1,685,042
Connecticut............................................. 38,882,061
Delaware................................................ 925,702
District of Columbia.................................... 56,905,623
Florida................................................. 17,442,156
Georgia................................................. 24,732,420
Hawaii.................................................. 1,104,095
Illinois................................................ 123,714,778
Indiana................................................. 9,066,393
Louisiana............................................... 2,904,984
Maryland................................................ 27,174,472
Massachusetts........................................... 69,275,018
Michigan................................................ 390,401
Minnesota............................................... 4,169,386
Missouri................................................ 4,019,407
New Jersey.............................................. 92,768,993
New York................................................ 350,286,663
Ohio.................................................... 17,728,816
Oregon.................................................. 4,104,767
Pennsylvania............................................ 103,484,030
Puerto Rico............................................. 2,401,851
Rhode Island............................................ 1,843,732
Tennessee............................................... 309,837
Texas................................................... 8,110,941
Virginia................................................ 6,133,234
Washington.............................................. 19,883,930
Wisconsin............................................... 809,397
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal.......................................... 1,125,036,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Oversight............................................... 11,364,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 1,136,400,000

\1\ The Committee understands that the final Alaska rail modernization
allocation will include both the prior years' allocation owed the
railroad and the fiscal year 2002 allocation after appropriate
application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEW STARTS

The bill provides $1,236,400,000 for new starts. These
funds are available for major investment studies, preliminary
engineering, right-of-way acquisition, project management,
oversight, and construction for new systems and extensions.
Under section 3009(g) of TEA21, there is an 8-percent statutory
cap on the amount made available for activities other than
final design and construction--that is, alternatives analysis,
environmental impact statements, preliminary engineering, major
investment studies, and other predesign and preconstruction
activities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The bill allocates the funds provided for new starts as
follows:

Project Amount

Denver, Colorado, Southwest corridor light rail transit
project............................................. $192,492
Northeast Indianapolis-downtown corridor project........ 3,000,000
Northern Indiana South Shore commuter rail project...... 3,000,000
Salt Lake City, Utah, CBD to University light rail
transit proj-
ect................................................. 15,000,000
Salt Lake City, Utah, University Medical Center light
rail transit extension project...................... 6,000,000
Salt Lake City, Utah, Ogden-Provo commuter rail project. 2,000,000
Wilmington, Delaware, Transit Corridor project.......... 4,000,000
Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System project.... 500,000
Denver, Colorado, Southeast corridor light rail transit
project............................................. 60,000,000
Kansas City, Missouri, Central Corridor Light Rail
transit proj-
ect................................................. 10,000,000
Atlanta, Georgia, MARTA extension project............... 25,000,000
Maine Marine Highway development project................ 2,000,000
New Jersey, Hudson-Bergen light rail transit project.... 151,069,771
Newark-Elizabeth, New Jersey, rail link project......... 20,000,000
New Jersey Urban Core Newark Penn Station improvements
project............................................. 3,000,000
Cleveland, Ohio, Euclid corridor extension project...... 7,000,000
Albuquerque, New Mexico, light rail project............. 2,000,000
Chicago, Illinois, Douglas branch reconstruction project 35,000,000
Chicago, Illinois, Ravenswood line extension project.... 5,000,000
St. Louis, Missouri, Metrolink St. Clair extension
project............................................. 24,223,268
Chicago, Illinois, Metra North central, South West,
Union Pacific commuter project...................... 30,000,000
Charlotte, North Carolina, South corridor light rail
transit proj-
ect................................................. 10,000,000
Raleigh, North Carolina, Triangle transit project....... 9,000,000
San Diego, California, Mission Valley East light rail
transit extension project........................... 65,000,000
Los Angeles, California, East Side corridor light rail
transit proj-
ect................................................. 10,000,000
San Francisco, California, BART extension project....... 80,605,331
Los Angeles, California, North Hollywood extension
project............................................. 9,289,557
Stockton, California, Altamont commuter rail project.... 5,000,000
San Jose, California, Tasman West, light rail transit
project............................................. 113,336
Nashville, Tennessee, Commuter rail project............. 6,000,000
Memphis, Tennessee, Medical Center rail extension
project............................................. 19,170,000
Des Moines, Iowa, DSM bus feasibility project........... 150,000
Macro Vision Pioneer, Iowa, light rail feasibility
project............................................. 100,000
Sioux City, Iowa, light rail project.................... 3,500,000
Dubuque, Iowa, light rail feasibility project........... 300,000
Charleston, South Carolina, Monobeam project............ 2,000,000
Anderson County, South Carolina, transit system project. 5,000,000
Dallas, Texas, North central light rail transit
extension project................................... 70,000,000
Houston, Texas, Metro advanced transit plan project..... 25,000,000
Fort Worth, Texas, Trinity railway express project...... 4,000,000
Honolulu, Hawaii, Bus rapid transit project............. 12,000,000
Boston, Massachusetts, South Boston Piers transitway
project............................................. 10,631,245
Boston, Massachusetts, Urban ring transit project....... 1,000,000
Kenosha-Racine, Milwaukee Wisconsin, commuter rail
extension project................................... 4,000,000
New Orleans, Louisiana, Canal Street car line project... 23,000,000
New Orleans, Louisiana, Airport CBD commuter rail
project............................................. 7,000,000
Burlington, Vermont, Burlington to Middlebury rail line
project............................................. 3,000,000
Detroit, Michigan, light rail airport link project...... 1,000,000
Grand Rapids, Michigan, ITP metro area, major corridor
project............................................. 1,500,000
Iowa, Metrolink light rail feasibility project.......... 500,000
Fairfield, Connecticut, Commuter rail project........... 6,000,000
Stamford, Connecticut, Urban transitway project......... 4,000,000
Little Rock, Arkansas, River rail project............... 3,000,000
Maryland, MARC commuter rail improvements projects...... 14,000,000
Baltimore, Maryland rail transit project................ 3,000,000
Largo, Maryland, metrorail extension project............ 60,000,000
Baltimore, Maryland, central light rail transit double
track proj-
ect................................................. 18,110,000
Puget Sound, Washington, Sounder commuter rail project.. 24,500,000
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Tri-County commuter rail
project............................................. 30,000,000
Pawtucket-TF Green, Rhode Island, commuter rail and
maintenance facility project........................ 8,000,000
Johnson County, Kansas, commuter rail project........... 1,500,000
Long Island Railroad, New York, east side access project 20,000,000
New York, New York, Second Avenue subway project........ 3,000,000
Birmingham, Alabama, transit corridor project........... 4,000,000
Nashua, New Hampshire-Lowell, Massachusetts, commuter
rail project........................................ 5,000,000
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, North Shore connector light
rail extension project.............................. 10,000,000
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Schuykill Valley metro
project............................................. 16,000,000
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, stage II light rail transit
reconstruction project.............................. 20,000,000
Scranton, Pennsylvania, rail service to New York City
project............................................. 2,500,000
Wasilla, Alaska, alternate route project................ 2,500,000
Ohio, Central Ohio North Corridor rail (COTA) project... 1,000,000
Virginia, VRE station improvements project.............. 4,000,000
Twin Cities, Minnesota, Hiawatha Corridor light rail
transit project..................................... 50,000,000
Portland, Oregon, Interstate MAX light rail transit
extension project................................... 70,000,000
San Juan, Tren Urbano project........................... 50,149,000
Alaska and Hawaii Ferry projects........................ 10,296,000

Albuquerque, New Mexico, light rail project.--The City of
Albuquerque's Transit Department, in coordination with New
Mexico's Highway and Transportation Department, and the Middle
Rio Grande Council of Governments, has undertaken a High
Capacity Transportation System (HCTS) Study. The Albuquerque
Metropolitan Planning Area is forecasted to have a 48 percent
increase in population by 2020. Accordingly, in order to
maintain the area's attractiveness for residents and economic
development, a combination of transportation improvements is
under examination. Planning for the proposed HCTS will be
completed in two phases. Phase I will develop a 20-year high
capacity-strategic corridors plan. Phase I will be completed in
November 2000. Phase II will include the environmental document
for the approved corridor(s). The Draft Environmental Impact
Statement is anticipated for completion in December 2002.
Alternatives that are being studied include: No-build, roadway
improvements, new roadways, Travel Demand Management/
Transportation System Management (TDM/TSM), including
Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) applications, bus
service improvements, express bus and park-and-ride service,
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, busways, commuter rail,
light rail and a combination of modes. High capacity-strategic
corridors will be incorporated into the region's Metropolitan
Transportation Plan. Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has
appropriated $12,300,000 in section 5309 New Starts funds for
this effort and it has been authorized in TEA21. The Committee
has recommended $2,000,000 in new starts funding for this
project in fiscal year 2002.
Anderson County, South Carolina Transit System.--The
Anderson County trolley system would prove an integral part of
the commuter population in Anderson County. It would move
people, many of which are low income, from their homes to jobs
by using the rail system. This would create a more efficient
and environmentally conscious answer to the overburdened system
currently in place. The Committee has recommended $5,000,000 in
new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
Atlanta, Georgia, north line extension project.--The
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) is
constructing a 2.3-mile, 2-station extension of the North Line
from the Dunwoody station to North Springs. This extension will
serve the rapidly-growing area north of Atlanta, which includes
Perimeter Center and north Fulton County, and will connect this
area with the rest of the region by providing better transit
service for both commuters and inner-city residents traveling
to expanding job opportunities. On December 20, 1994, FTA
issued an FFGA committing a total of $305,010,000 in new starts
funding to this project. In the Conference Report to the fiscal
year 2000 appropriations act, FTA was instructed to amend the
FFGA for this project to incorporate a change in scope as
authorized under section 3030(d)(2) of TEA21. Accordingly, on
March 2, 2000, FTA amended the FFGA to include 28 additional
railcars, a multilevel parking facility in lieu of a surface
parking lot, and enhancements to customer security and amenity
measures at the Sandy Springs and North Springs stations. The
total cost of the amended project is $463,180,000, with
$370,540,000 from the section 5309 new starts program. Of the
$65,530,000 increase in Federal funding, $10,670,000 was
applied from unexpended prior-year funds identified from cost
savings on the Dunwoody section of the North Line extension.
Including these prior-year funds, a total of $304,820,000 has
been appropriated for this project in fiscal year 2000 and
prior years, and an additional $24,770,000 was provided in
fiscal year 2001. This leaves $40,950,000 remaining in the
amended FFGA for this project. The Committee has recommended
$25,000,000 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal
year 2002.
Baltimore, Maryland, rail transit project.--Planning and
feasibility studies to look at the future of rail improvements
in the Baltimore area are needed. The studies would examine the
possibility of creating a rail ``loop'' extending from the
terminus of Light Rail at Penn Station southward to the Pratt
Street Corridor. The rail would then continue westward to
connect with the Light Rail at Howard Street. Funding is based
under TEA21 on section 3030(b)(6) under the Metropolitan Rail
Corridor project, and section 3030(b)(7) under the Baltimore
People Mover project. The Committee has recommended $3,000,000
in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
Baltimore/Central LRT Double-Tracking.--The Maryland Mass
Transit Administration plans to construct 9.4 miles of track to
upgrade designated areas of the Baltimore Central Corridor
Light Rail Line that are currently single track. The Central
Corridor is 29 miles long and operates between Hunt Valley in
the north to Cromwell/Glen Burnie in the south, serving
Baltimore City and Baltimore and Anne Arundel Counties, with
extensions providing direct service to the Amtrak Penn Station
and the Baltimore-Washington International Airport. The
proposed project will double-track eight sections of the
Central Corridor between Timonium and Cromwell Station/Glen
Burnie, for a total of 9.4 miles. Although no new stations are
required, the addition of a second track will require
construction of second station platforms at four stations.
Other elements included in the project are bridge and crossing
improvements, a bi-directional signal system with traffic
signal preemption on Howard Street, and catenary and other
equipment and systems. The double tracking will be constructed
almost entirely in existing right-of-way. The total cost of the
double-tracking and related improvements is estimated at
$153,700,000, of which MTA is expected to seek $120,000,000 (78
percent) in section 5309 new starts funds. MTA ridership
forecasts estimate that this project will serve 44,000 average
weekday boardings and 6,800 daily new riders by 2020. This
project will improve service and reliability by permitting the
operation of additional trains which will reduce the interval
between trains to eight minutes in peak service and 12 minutes
during off-peak periods; trains currently operate at 17-minute
intervals. This project has been rated ``medium-high'' for
finance and ``medium'' for project justification, based on
FTA's evaluation under section 5309(e). This results in an
overall project rating of ``recommended.'' The original Central
Corridor Light Rail Line began operations in 1992 as a mostly
single-track line. MTA completed a study examining the
feasibility, environmental impacts and benefits of double
tracking eight sections. Three federally-funded extensions, to
Hunt Valley, Penn Station, and Baltimore-Washington
International Airport were completed in 1998. The double track
project was adopted by the Baltimore Metropolitan Council and
included in its financially constrained long-range plan in
1993. Section 3030(a)(42) of TEA21 authorizes the ``Maryland--
Light Rail Double Track'' for final design and construction. A
total of $5,650,000 has been appropriated through fiscal year
2000, and an additional $2,970,000 was provided in fiscal year
2001. The Committee has recommended $18,110,000 in new starts
funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
Birmingham, Alabama, transit corridor project.--The
Birmingham Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) completed a
Regional Transit Feasibility Analysis as part of the Strategic
Regional Multi-modal Mobility Plan (Plan) in November 1999. The
overall Plan includes a congestion management system element
and a feasibility determination for regional transportation and
transit improvements for the Birmingham Metropolitan Planning
Area of Jefferson and Shelby Counties. In the Phase I regional
transportation and investment planning process, the
transportation alternatives that were identified included
highway improvements, high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes,
improved fixed-route transit service, circulator and feeder bus
service, express bus service operating from park-and-ride lots
on HOV lanes and light rail transit. The conclusions from the
Phase I effort included, among other findings, the need to
address long-term dedicated public transit funding and land
development policies. The Birmingham MPO, representing local
municipal and county governments, in cooperation with the
Birmingham-Jefferson County Transit Authority, will conduct
Phase II. Phase II will identify the locally preferred
alternative in each corridor in accordance with FTA's
regulations for Major Capital Investment Projects. Phase II is
scheduled for completion in fiscal year 2002. Through fiscal
year 2001, Congress has appropriated $8,880,000 in section 5309
New Starts funds for this effort and it has been authorized in
TEA21. The Committee has recommended $4,000,000 in new starts
funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
Boston, Massachusetts, South Boston pier transitway
project.--The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)
is developing an underground transitway to connect the existing
transit system with the South Boston Piers area. The Piers
area, which is connected to the central business district (CBD)
by three local bridges, is undergoing significant development.
A 1.5-mile tunnel, which will be constructed in two phases,
will extend from the existing Boylston Station to the World
Trade Center; five underground stations will provide
connections to the MBTA's Red, Orange, and Green Lines. Dual-
mode trackless trolleys will operate in the transitway tunnel
and on surface routes in the eastern end of the Piers area.
Phase 1 of this project consists of a 1-mile, three-station bus
tunnel between South Station and the World Trade Center, with
an intermediate stop at Fan Pier. Part of the construction is
being coordinated with the Central Artery highway project.
South Station serves the existing MBTA Red Line, as well as
Amtrak and commuter rail and bus service. The total estimated
cost of Phase I is $601,000,000. Phase II would extend the
transitway to Boylston Station on the Green Line and the
Chinatown Station on the Orange Line. Section 3035(j) of ISTEA
directed FTA to enter into an FFGA for this project. On
November 5, 1994, an FFGA was issued for Phase 1, committing a
total of $330,730,000 in section 5309 new starts funding.
Through fiscal year 2000, a total of $294,760,000 has been
provided for this project. The fiscal year 2001 appropriation
provided an additional $24,770,000. The Committee has
recommended $10,631,245 in new starts funding for this project
in fiscal year 2002.
Boston, Massachusetts, Urban ring transit project.--The
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) is conducting
a Major Investment Study (MIS) to examine transportation
alternatives to improve circumferential mass transit in a
corridor surrounding the Boston central core. The proposed
corridor, known as the Urban Ring and generally following a
previously proposed inner belt highway alignment, includes
regional trip generators, beginning at the University of
Massachusetts' Boston Campus at the southeast end and
terminating at Logan Airport at the northeast end. The corridor
also includes many major public, private, and institutional
activity centers located in Boston, Cambridge, Chelsea,
Everett, Somerville, and Brookline. Currently, the alternatives
under consideration include circumferential rail service,
various combinations of rail and bus service to new station
stops on the existing radial system, and enhanced bus service.
These alternatives would connect with extant commuter rail and
transit lines. The project is included in the ``future
projects'' section of the Boston area Long-Range Transportation
Plan, but is not in the financially constrained plan. Through
fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $4,800,000 in
section 5309 New Starts funds for this effort and authorized
under TEA21. The Committee has recommended $1,000,000 in new
starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
Burlington, Vermont, Burlington to Middlebury rail line
project.--The Vermont Agency of Transportation and Vermont Rail
Division are working to slowly rehabilitate the rail system
along the western side of the State to provide faster and more
efficient service to a greater amount of people in Vermont.
Given the overwhelming success of the Champlain Flyer commuter
rail line from Burlington to Charlotte, Vermont. This new rail
line would extend service to Middlebury as well as add more
daily travelers on the rail system. The Committee has
recommended $3,000,000 in new starts funding for this project
in fiscal year 2002.
Central Link Light Rail, Puget Sound, Washington.--The
Committee strongly supports a comprehensive transit solution
for the Puget Sound, Washington corridor. It is currently the
second most congested area in the nation. A $500,000,000 Full
Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) for the project was executed in
January 2001. Since that time, the project has faced increased
scrutiny and oversight by Congress and the Department of
Transportation Inspector General related to concerns about cost
increases and schedule delays. This thorough examination of the
project is justified.
The Committee has been encouraged by progress made in
recent months. The agency has new leadership and a new
management team. New management has executed an agency-wide re-
organization and instituted rigorous new budget and project
controls. The Sound Transit board is currently reviewing the
project, and is scheduled to make a decision to affirm or
revise the alignment for the first minimum operable segment in
September 2001.
The Committee anticipates honoring the FFGA and resuming
funding for the project once the concerns raised by the
Congress and the Inspector General's Interim Report are
addressed satisfactorily.
Central Ohio North Corridor Rail project.--The Central Ohio
Transit Authority (COTA) is pursuing funding for preliminary
engineering for the North Corridor Rail project. COTA and Mid-
Ohio Regional Planning Commission are currently in the process
of updating a Major Investment Study (MIS) of the North
Corridor that will be completed in 2001. COTA plans to move
into preliminary engineering (PE) upon completion of the MIS.
The Committee has recommended $1,000,000 in New Starts funding
for this project in fiscal year 2002.
Charleston, South Carolina, Monobeam Project.--The
Charleston Area Regional Transportation Authority, in
cooperation with the City of Charleston and the City of North
Charleston, is examining the feasibility of implementing a
proposed monobeam transit system from the Airport to the
Convention Center. The proposed full-scale monobeam prototype
is a 3-year $35,000,000 to $40,000,000 effort that is expected
to be financed largely with private funds. An approximately
1.25-mile prototype will be erected on a site in the Charleston
community and is designed to demonstrate the aesthetic, cost
and environmental characteristics of the monobeam, as well as
its safety and reliability. The prototype could become the
first segment of a regional rail transit network. Through
fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $6,130,000 in
section 5309 New Starts for this effort and it has also been
authorized under TEA21. The Committee has recommended
$2,000,000 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal
year 2002.
Charlotte, North Carolina, south corridor light rail
transit project.--The Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS), in
cooperation with the City of Charlotte, is proposing to design
and construct an 11-mile light rail transit line extending from
Uptown Charlotte to the Town on Pineville, North Carolina, near
the South Carolina border. The proposed project is currently
planned to operate within portions of existing Norfolk-Southern
railroad rights-of-way (ROW), including sharing ROW with the
city's existing downtown trolley system. The south corridor is
an area generally paralleling I-77 along NS railroad ROW in the
City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County. A 3.7 mile portion of
the proposed system--between Uptown and Scaleybark Road--would
operate on abandoned NS ROW owned by the City of Charlotte. The
reminder of the planned system (7.3 miles) would operate on
separate tracks generally paralleling NS ROW. The proposed
project also includes construction of 19 stations, purchase of
up to 12 light rail vehicles and the construction of a light
rail vehicle maintenance and storage facility. The stations at
the southern terminus of the line would include park-and-ride
lots and serve as transfer points for local and feeder bus
service. An additional station will transfer as an intermodal
transfer point for feeder buses, while a station at the
Charlotte Transportation Center in uptown Charlotte will
provide connections to the downtown trolley and local bus
service. Total capital costs for the south corridor project are
estimated at $331,000,000. The Federal share is estimated to be
$166,800,000 (50 percent). Through fiscal year 2001, Congress
has appropriated $12,840,000 in section 5309 new starts funds
for this effort. It has also been authorized under TEA21. The
Committee has recommended $10,000,000 in new starts funding for
this project in fiscal year 2002.
Chicago, Illinois, Douglas Branch reconstruction project.--
The Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) is proposing a complete
reconstruction of the Douglas Branch heavy rail line. Part of
the CTA's Blue Line, the 11-station Douglas Branch extends 6.6
miles from Cermack Avenue to a point just west of downtown
Chicago. Dating to the 19th Century, the oldest segment on the
line opened in 1896 and the ``newest'' in 1910, though numerous
improvements and upgrades were made through the mid-1980's.
Age-related deterioration has resulted in high maintenance and
operating costs on the line, as well as declining service. The
Douglas Branch currently carries approximately 27,000 riders on
an average weekday, and serves one of the most economically
distressed areas in Chicago; low income households make up 30
percent of the total number of households within walking
distance of the stations. The line has been in operation for
over 100 years, and serves neighborhoods that originally
developed along the system. The corridor contains an estimated
54,000 jobs and 115,000 residents within one-half mile of the
stations, and serves the University of Illinois at Chicago
(25,000 students) and a large, dense central business district
with an estimated 339,000 jobs. Population and employment
densities are high, averaging 9,100 jobs and nearly 20,000
people per square mile. After ``looping'' through the central
business district, the Blue Line also extends to O'Hare
International Airport and the Medical Center Complex. The total
capital cost of the Douglas Branch reconstruction project is
estimated at $482,600,000. The Douglas Branch is authorized for
final design and construction by section 3030(a)(106) of TEA21.
In January 2001, FTA and CTA entered into an FFGA that commits
a total of $320,100,000 in section 5309 new starts funds to
this project. A total of $4,920,000 has been appropriated
through fiscal year 2000, and an additional $14,860,000 was
provided in fiscal year 2001. This leaves $300,320,000 needed
to fulfill the FFGA. The Committee has recommended $35,000,000
in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
Chicago, Illinois, Metra North Central, Southwest Corridor
Commuter Rails, and Union Pacific West line extension
project.--Metra, the commuter rail division of the Regional
Transportation Authority (RTA) of northeastern Illinois, is
seeking to add a second mainline track along 12 miles of the
53-mile North Central Service commuter rail line. The proposed
project also includes track and signal upgrades, construction
of five new stations, parking facilities, rail yard expansion
and purchase of one new diesel locomotive and eight bi-level
passenger cars. The total capital cost of this project is
estimated at $236,450,000, of which Metra is expected to seek
$144,690,000 in section 5309 new starts funding. The North
Central corridor extends from downtown Chicago to Antioch on
the Illinois-Wisconsin border, and traverses suburban Lake
County. It includes the two most significant hubs of employment
in the six-county northeastern Illinois region, the Chicago CBD
and the area surrounding O'Hare International Airport. Metra
estimates that this project will serve an average of 8,400
average weekday boardings by 2020, with 8,000 daily new riders.
This project has been rated ``medium'' for both project
justification and finance, earning an overall rating of
``recommended.'' FTA approved entry into the final design stage
of development in October 2000. Section 3030(a)(10) of TEA21
authorizes the North Central project for final design and
construction. Through fiscal year 2000, a total of $19,600,000
was provided for this project, and an additional $14,250,000
was provided in fiscal year 2001. Metra is planning an
extension and various improvements to the existing Southwest
commuter rail line. The 29-mile Southwest line provides service
from Orland Park, Illinois, to downtown Chicago. This project
would extend the line 11 miles from the existing 179th street
station in Orland Park, southwest to Manhattan, Illinois. Also
included in this project are the construction of three miles of
a second mainline track, two additional stations and parking
facilities, and multiple track, signal, and station
improvements. The project also includes expansion of two
existing rail yards, construction of a third rail yard,
rehabilitation of several railroad bridges, and the purchase of
two diesel locomotives and 13 bi-level passenger cars. Finally,
the downtown Chicago terminal would be relocated from Union
Station to the LaSalle street station as part of this project.
Section 3030(a)(12) of TEA21 authorized the ``Southwest
extension''. The total cost of this project is estimated at
$218,700,000, of which Metra is expected to seek $36,970,000
(17 percent) in section 5309 new starts funding. To date
Congress has appropriated $17,860,000 to the project. Chicago's
Metra commuter rail division is planning additional extensions
and improvements on its Union Pacific west commuter rail line.
The Union Pacific west project, also known as the Central Kane
corridor, is an extension of the existing 36-mile Union Pacific
west line, which currently provides service between Geneva and
downtown Chicago. This project would extend the line eight
miles west to Elburn, with two new stations serving Elburn and
La Fox. The extension itself will use existing railroad track
and right-of-way currently used by both Metra and the Union
Pacific freight railroad. The scope of the project includes the
multiple track and diagonal improvements, construction of two
new stations and associated parking facilities, a new train
yard, and the purchase of one diesel locomotive and eight bi-
level passenger cars. This project will link rapidly growing
communities to the west of Chicago with the major employment
centers in Chicago. Section 3030(a)(13) of TEA21 authorizes
this project as the Chicago ``west line extension''. The total
capital costs of the Union Pacific west extension and
improvements project is estimated at $80,728,000 in Federal new
starts funding (60 percent). Through fiscal year 2001, a total
of $16,450,000 has been appropriated. The Committee has
recommended a combined amount of $30,000,000 in new starts
funding for these three projects in fiscal year 2002.
Chicago, Illinois, Ravenswood reconstruction project.--The
Chicago Transit Authority is proposing to lengthen existing
platforms and expand stations on the existing Ravenswood
(brown) line to accommodate eight-car trains. The brown line
extends 9.3 miles from the north side of Chicago to the ``Loop
elevated'' in downtown Chicago and includes 19 stations. The
majority of the brown line is operated on an elevated structure
except one portion near the north end of the line, which
operates at grade. The brown line was built between 1900 and
1907. The line currently carries approximately 104,000 average
weekday boardings; however, current stations and platform size
prohibit CTA from increasing capacity on the line to handle
increased demand. The proposed project would expand stations
and platforms and straighten curves to allow CTA to operate
longer trains, which would increase the capacity of the line.
Section 3030(a)(11) of TEA21 authorized the project. In
November 1997, CTA included the Ravenswood line expansion
project in the region's financially constrained long-range
transportation plan. CTA is currently contemplating an
examination of the environmental impacts and benefits related
to the proposed project, including a historical preservation
issue associated with one of the stations that is scheduled for
rehabilitation. The environmental review process is scheduled
for completion in 2001. Total capital costs are currently
estimated at $327,000,000. To date, Congress has appropriated
$4,920,000 in section 5309 new starts funds for the project, in
addition to be authorized in TEA21. The Committee has
recommended $5,000,000 in new starts funding for this project
in fiscal year 2002.
Cleveland, Ohio, Euclid corridor transportation project.--
The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA) is
proposing to design and construct a 9.8-mile transit corridor
incorporating exclusive bus rapid transit lanes and related
capital improvements on Euclid Avenue from Public Square in
downtown Cleveland east to University Circle. The proposed
project is known as the Euclid corridor transportation project
(ECTP). The ECTP incorporates a series of transit improvements
including an exclusive center median busway along Euclid Avenue
from Public Square to University Circle area and continue into
the city of East Cleveland, terminating at the Stokes/
Windermere rapid transit station. GCRTA proposes to operate 60-
foot articulated electric trolley buses (ETB) with both left
and right-hand side doors for access and egress of patrons on
the corridor. The ETBs will have access to the entire length of
the proposed corridor. However, conventional buses will not be
able to access Euclid Avenue in the central business district.
GCRTA estimates that 29,500 average weekday boardings will use
the ECTP in the forecast year (2025). Section 3035 of ISTEA
authorized FTA to enter into a multiyear grant agreement for
development of the Dual Hub Corridor, originally considered as
a tail link between downtown and University Circle. In November
1995, the GCRTA Board of Trustees selected the ETCP as the
locally preferred alternative (LPA) which included a busway and
the rehabilitation and relocation of several existing rapid
rail stations. In December 1995, the Northeast Ohio areawide
coordinating agency (local metropolitan planing organization)
adopted a resolution supporting the ECTP. In mid-1999, GCRTA
reconfigured the scope of the ECTP to incorporate only the
construction of a busway along Euclid Avenue. The rapid rail
elements have been eliminated from the ECTP proposal for
section 5309 New Starts funding. The environmental review
process is scheduled for completion in summer of 2001. Total
capital costs for the ECTP are estimated at $228,600,000
(escalated dollars), of which Cleveland is expected to seek
$135,000,000 in new starts funding for the project (59
percent). Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated
$13,440,000 in section 5309 new starts funds for the Euclid
corridor transportation project. Of this amount, $4,720,000 was
rescinded or reprogrammed by Congress because of project
delays. The Committee has recommended $7,000,000 in new starts
funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
Dallas, Texas, North Central LRT extension project.--Dallas
Area Rapid Transit (DART) is constructing a 12.5-mile, 9-
station extension of its light rail system from the Park Lane
Station north to the City of Plano. DART estimates that
approximately 17,000 riders will use this extension by 2020, of
which 6,800 will be new riders. The total cost of this project
is estimated at $517,200,000. DART began contracting for
construction and purchasing vehicles and necessary right-of-way
in May 1998, and expects to open the North Central extension
for revenue service in December 2003. The North Central
extension is authorized for final design and construction under
section 3030(a)(20) of TEA21. FTA issued an FFGA for this
project on October 6, 1999, which will provide a total of
$333,000,000 in section 5309 new starts funding. Through fiscal
year 2000, a total of $92,270,000 has been provided to this
project, with an additional $69,350,000 appropriated in fiscal
year 2001. The Committee has recommended $70,000,000 in new
starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
Denver, Colorado, Southeast Corridor LRT project.--The
Regional Transportation District (RTD) in Denver and the
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) are implementing a
19.12-mile, 14-station light rail line between downtown Denver
and Lincoln Avenue in Douglas County along I-25, with a spur
along I-225 to Parker Road in Arapahoe County. The double-
tracked line would operate over an exclusive right-of-way and
connect with both the existing Central Corridor light rail line
in downtown Denver, and the Southwest line which is currently
under construction. The total capital cost of this project is
estimated at $879,300,000. Revenue service is projected to
begin by June 30, 2008. Section 3030(a)(23) of TEA21 authorized
the Southeast LRT in Denver for final design and construction.
FTA issued an FFGA for this project on November 17, 2000, which
will provide a total of $525,000,000 in section 5309 new starts
funding. A total of $3,440,000 in section 5309 new starts funds
has been appropriated for this project through fiscal year
2000, and an additional $2,970,000 was provided in fiscal year
2001. The Committee has recommended $60,000,000 in new starts
funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
Denver, Colorado, Southwest Corridor LRT project.--The
Denver RTD Southwest Corridor light rail extension opened for
revenue service in July 2000. The 8.7-mile, five-station line
between Denver and Littleton extends from the I-25/Broadway
station on the existing Central Corridor line south to Mineral
Avenue in Littleton, running parallel to Santa Fe Drive over an
exclusive, grade-separated right-of-way. The total cost of this
project was $176,320,000. Ridership in the opening year has
exceeded not only the original opening-year forecast of 8,400
daily passengers, but also the projections of 22,000 daily
riders by 2015. The line currently serves 30,000 passengers per
day. FTA issued an FFGA for this project on May 9, 1996, which
will provide a total of $120,000,000 in section 5309 new starts
funding. Through fiscal year 2000, a total of $99,790,000 has
been provided to this project, with an additional $20,010,000
appropriated in fiscal year 2001. The Committee has recommended
$192,492 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year
2002.
Des Moines, Iowa, DSM bus feasibility project.--Due to
growth in the Des Moines area, a feasibility study is necessary
to apprise the need for adjustments in the transportation
system in the greater Des Moines area. The Committee has
recommended $150,000 in new starts funding for this project in
fiscal year 2002.
Detroit, Michigan, light rail airport link project.--An
alternative analysis phase of the study of a rail system
linking downtown Detroit with the Detroit Metropolitan/Wayne
County Airport. The Detroit Airport will open a new
international terminal in December which will greatly increase
the airport's capacity. This rail project will alleviate
traffic congestion and the shortage of parking that is expected
as a result of the expanded airport. The rail project is
currently undergoing a feasibility study. This study is
expected to be completed in June of 2001. The Committee has
recommended $1,000,000 in new starts funding for this project
in fiscal year 2002.
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, Tri-Rail Commuter Rail Upgrade.--
The Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority (Tri-Rail) is proposing
a number of system improvements to the 71.7-mile regional
transportation system it operates between Palm Beach, Broward
and Dade Counties in South Florida. This area has a population
of over 4 million, nearly one-third of the total population of
Florida. The planned improvements include construction of a
second mainline track, rehabilitation of the signal system,
station and parking improvements, acquisition of new rolling
stock, improvements to the Hialeah Maintenance Yard facility
and construction of a new, northern layover facility. The
proposed double-tracking will improve service by a factor of
three, permitting 20-minute intervals between trains during
peak commuter hours instead of the current one-hour headways.
Tri-Rail estimates that these improvements will serve 42,100
average daily boardings by 2015, including 10,200 daily new
riders. On May 16, 2000, FTA issued an FFGA for Segment 5 of
the Double Track Corridor Improvement Program, which includes
construction of 44.31 miles of the second mainline track and
upgrades to the existing grade crossing system along the entire
71.7-mile South Florida Rail Corridor. It is expected to open
for revenue service on March 21, 2005. The first four segments,
upgrading the Hialeah Maintenance Yard and replacing the New
River Bridge, while part of the overall Double Track Corridor
Improvement Program, are not included in the scope of this
project. Total capital costs for the Segment 5 project are
estimated at $327,000,000. The FFGA for the Double Track
Corridor Improvement Program Segment 5 Project will provide a
total of $110,500,000 in section 5309 new starts funding. Tri-
Rail has allocated a total of $10,810,000 in fiscal year 2000
and prior year funding to this project, and an additional
$14,860,000 was appropriated in fiscal year 2001. This project
has been authorized in TEA21. The Committee has recommended
$30,000,000 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal
year 2002.
Fort Worth, Texas, Trinity Railway Express project.--The
addition of rolling stock in the Trinity Railway Express would
allow the rail to meet anticipated ridership that is associated
with service to the Fort Worth central business district which
is due to increase in the fall. Existing ridership has exceeded
expectations and the Fort Worth Transit Authority anticipates
that the central business district service will require two new
bi-level coaches, one new bi-level cab car and one new
locomotive to meet demand for the extension of service to
downtown Fort Worth. The Committee has recommended $4,000,000
in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
Grand Rapids, Michigan, ITP metro area, major corridor
project.--The Interurban Transit Partnership is looking to
conduct a study in the Grand Rapids, Michigan metro area. This
study would investigate the possibility and assess the
necessity of a major corridor running through this region. This
project has been authorized in TEA21. The Committee has
recommended $1,500,000 in new starts funding for this project
in fiscal year 2002.
Honolulu, Hawaii, Bus rapid transit study.--This project is
part of the Primary Corridor Transportation Project. The
Honolulu Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) consists of a Regional and In-
town bus rapid transit system. The Regional BRT element
includes a continuous H-1 BRT corridor from Kapolei to
Downtown, to be used by Regional BRT vehicles as well as
private automobiles with three or more occupants. The in-town
BRT component would be a high capacity transit spine from
Middle Street Downtown, a University Branch from Downtown to
the University of Hawaii-Manoa, and a downtown Kakaako/Wakiki
Branch. In fiscal year 2001 $2,500,000 was appropriated for
this project. This project has been authorized in TEA21. The
Committee has recommended $12,000,000 in new starts funding for
this project in fiscal year 2002.
Houston, Texas, Metro advanced transit plan project.--The
Advanced Transit Program (ATP) is a $304,800,000 program that
is proposed for funding with 50 percent section 5309 New Starts
funds and 50 percent local funds. The ATP includes a number of
projects, including two Major Investment Studies (MIS)--
(Downtown to Astrodome and West Loop Corridors). The Downtown
to Astrodome MIS/Environmental Assessment was completed in
September 1999. Preliminary engineering for the resultant light
rail locally preferred alternative is currently underway. The
West Loop MIS is scheduled for completion in March 2001. The
West Loop MIS is locally funded. Through fiscal year 2001,
Congress has appropriated $8,400,000 in section 5309 New Starts
funds for the ATP. Section 5309 New Starts funds appropriated
through fiscal year 1999 were applied to the MIS/EA for the
Downtown to Astrodome LRT. Assignment of fiscal year 2000 and
fiscal year 2001 funds are pending. This project has been
authorized in TEA21. The Committee has recommended $25,000,000
in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
Johnson County, Kansas, commuter rail project engineering
and design.--Johnson County, Kansas is proposing to implement a
5 station, 23-mile Commuter Rail line extending from downtown
Kansas City, Missouri, southwest to Olathe, Kansas, in Johnson
County. The proposed commuter rail project would parallel
Interstate 35, the major highway connecting Kansas City with
Olathe, and would share existing Burlington Northern and Santa
Fe (BNSF) railroad track (except for the line's northern-most
mile segment, which would require either new track or existing
Kansas City Terminal Railway trackage). Park and ride
facilities are being planned for each proposed station. The
commuter rail line will terminate in Kansas City at its
historic Union Station. Ridership estimates for the I-35
commuter rail project range from 1,400 to 3,800 trips per day
by 2001; these estimates will be refined during subsequent
phases of project development. TEA21 section 5309(e)(8)(A)
applies to this project. The Committee has recommended
$1,500,000 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal
year 2002.
Kansas City, Missouri, Central corridor light rail/
streetcar project.--The Kansas City Area Transportation
Authority is finalizing the preliminary engineering for the 25
miles of light rail/streetcars linking southern and eastern
portions of Kansas City, Missouri. The City of Kansas City,
Missouri is embarking on an initiative to develop a fixed-guide
way public transit system in the Central Corridor. The
Committee has recommended $10,000,000 in new starts funding for
this project in fiscal year 2002.
Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee, Wisconsin, commuter rail
extension project.--The Southeastern Wisconsin Regional
Planning Commission (SEWRPC)--local Metropolitan Planning
Organization--plans to conduct an Alternative Analysis study to
examine the feasibility of extending Chicago-based Metra
commuter rail service from Kenosha to Racine and Milwaukee. The
study will focus on a proposed 33-mile corridor connecting the
central business districts of Kenosha, Racine and Milwaukee in
southeastern Wisconsin. SEWRPC has recently completed a
feasibility study--funded entirely with local funds--that
concluded that the extension is feasible. SEWRPC has adopted
the project into the region's Long-Range Plan. Through fiscal
year 2001, Congress has appropriated $5,440,000 in section 5309
New Starts funds for this effort. This project has been
authorized in TEA21. The Committee has recommended $4,000,000
in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
Largo, Maryland, Metrorail, extension project.--The
Maryland Mass Transit Administration (MTA) and the Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) are joint lead
local agencies planning a proposed 3.1 mile heavy rail
extension of the Metrorail blue line. The proposed Largo
Metrorail Extension will be from the existing Addison Road
Station to Largo town center, located just beyond the Capital
beltway in Prince George's County, Maryland. The project
follows an alignment that has been preserved as a rail transit
corridor in the Prince Georges's County master plan. The 3.1
mile alignment, containing at-, above-, and below-grade
segments, has been modified to be underground or covered
between Central Avenue and the Capital beltway to address
concerns raised during public review of the DEIS. Two new
stations will be provided at Summerfield and at the Largo town
center station. The stations will provide 500 and 2,200 park-
and-ride spaces and 11 bus bays each. A number of WMATA and
Prince George's County bus routes will connect to the two new
stations; shuttle bus service is proposed between both stations
and the FedEx Field (formerly known as the Redskins Stadium).
The project will also directly serve the USAir Arena, a former
major sports complex planned for entertainment and retail uses.
MTA will manage the project through preliminary engineering,
with WMATA undertaking final design and construction. The
project is anticipated to open for service by September 2004,
with a total capital cost estimated at $433,900,00. Average
weekday boardings are estimated to be 28,500 in 2020 with
16,400 daily new riders. The proposed Largo extension was
approved by the WMATA Board as an addition to the 103-mile
Metrorail adopted regional system in February 1997, applying
WMATA compact funding arrangements, contingent upon requisite
FTA approvals. The project is included in the national capital
region's constrained long range plan. Preliminary engineering
was initiated in February 1996. The draft environmental impact
statement (DEIS) was completed and approved by FTA in October
1996. The draft final environmental impact statement (FEIS) was
completed in September 1999. On December 15, 2000, FTA entered
into an FFGA with WMATA that commits a total of $260,300,000 in
section 5309 new starts funds to this project. This does not
include $5,650,000 in prior year funds that were provided to
the MTA for planning activities associated with the project ,
which would bring the total amount of new starts funding to
$265,690,000. To date, Congress has appropriated $13,080,000 to
this project. This project has been authorized in TEA21. The
Committee has recommended $60,000,000 in new starts funding for
this project in fiscal year 2002.
Little Rock, Arkansas, river rail project.--The Central
Arkansas Transit Authority (CATA) is planning the
implementation of a vintage streetcar circulator system on
existing right-of-way connecting the Alltel Arena, the River
Market, and the Convention Center in downtown Little Rock to
the communities of North Little Rock and Pulaski County. CATA
proposes that service be provided by seven replica streetcars
operating on a single track powered by overhead catenary. The
proposed system includes a 2.1 mile alignment, purchase of
vehicles, and construction of a maintenance facility. Ridership
projections estimate 1,000 to 1,200 average weekday boardings
with an additional 1,000 to 1,800 riders on special event days.
A future 0.4 mile extension to the William Jefferson Clinton
Presidential Library site has been proposed. Revenue service is
planned to begin in December 2002. This project is addressed in
the TEA21 section 5309(e)(8)(A). The Committee has recommended
$3,000,000 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal
year 2002.
Long Island Rail Road, New York, East Side access
project.--The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) is
the lead agency for the proposed Long Island Rail Road (LIRR)
East Side access project. The project would provide increased
capacity for the commuter rail lines of the Long Island Rail
Road and direct access between suburban and Long Island and
Queens and a new passenger terminal in Grand Central Terminal
(GST) in east Midtown Manhattan, in addition to the current
connection to Penn Station in Manhattan. The East Side Access
(ESA) connection and increased LIRR capacity would be achieved
by constructing a 4,600-foot tunnel from the LIRR Main Line in
Sunnyside, Queens to the existing tunnel under the East River
at 63rd Street. LIRR trains would use the lower level of this
bi-level structure. A second 5,000-foot tunnel would carry LIRR
trains from the 63rd Street Tunnel under Park Avenue and into a
new LIRR terminal in the lower level of GCT. ESA will provide
the LIRR with additional tunnel capacity across the East River.
Increased capacity and headways would be introduced at most
LIRR stations. In addition, a new LIRR station would be
constructed at Sunnyside Yard to provide access between Long
Island City and Penn Station in Manhattan. The East River
tunnels in Manhattan are at capacity. ESA is anticipated to
improve LIRR tunnel capacity constraints and enable the growth
of the overall system. Total capital costs are approximately
$4,340,000,000 (escalated dollars), including $3,560,000,000
for project management, design, construction, and right-of-way,
and $790,000,000 for rolling stock (over 225 new vehicles). MTA
is expected to seek $2,172,000,000 in section 5309 new starts
funding for this project (50 percent) Overall, more than
351,000 average weekday boardings to both Penn Station and GCT
would benefit directly from the LIRR ESA project by the year
2020. These include approximately 162,000 daily boardings
serving GCT, 161,000 daily boardings serving Penn Station and
5,500 daily boardings at the proposed Sunnyside Station. A
major investment study (MIS) on the Long Island Rail Road East
Side access was completed in April 1998. In June 1998, the New
York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC), the
metropolitan planning organization, passed a resolution
endorsing the recommended extension of the LIRR in to Grand
Central Station. In September 1998, FTA approved preliminary
engineering and preparation of an environmental impact
statement (EIS) for the project. A DEIS for the LIRR ESA was
completed in May 2000. MTA completed the final EIS in March
2001. A record of decision is anticipated in mid-2001. Through
fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $53,630,000 in
section 5309 new start funds for this project. This project has
been authorized in TEA21. The Committee has recommended
$20,000,000 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal
year 2002.
Los Angeles, California, East Side corridor light rail
transit project.--The Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority is proposing to implement a 5.9 mile
light rail transit (LRT) line in the Eastside Corridor,
connecting Downtown Los Angeles with low-to moderate-income
communities in East Los Angeles. The proposed system would
include 8 stations and will traverse eastward from Union
Station (the city's major intermodal hub, serving intercity,
commuter, and regional rail service, as well as local and
express bus services) along Alameda Street through the City
Terrace, Belvedere, and East Los Angeles communities of
unincorporated Los Angeles County. The project would terminate
at Beverly and Atlantic Boulevards, where a 500 space park-and-
ride facility is planned. The project is primarily at-grade,
with a 1.8 mile mid-section underground in tunnel. The project
is intended to improve mobility for residents and employees in
the corridor, and provide improved access to employment
opportunities throughout the MTA service area. 15,000 average
weekday boardings are forecasted on the proposed line in 2020,
including 9,700 daily new riders. The project is estimated to
cost $759,500,000 in escalated dollars, with a section 5309 New
Starts share of $402,300,000. This project has been authorized
in TEA21. The Committee has recommended $10,000,000 in new
starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
Los Angeles, California, North Hollywood extension
project.--The Los Angeles Metro Rail Red Line rapid-rail system
is being planned, programmed and constructed in phases, through
a series of ``Minimum Operable Segments'' (MOSs). The first of
these segments (MOS-1), a 4.4-mile, 5-station segment, opened
for revenue service in January 1993. A 2.1-mile, three-station
segment of MOS-2 opened along Wilshire Boulevard in July 1996;
an additional 4.6-mile, 5-station segment of MOS-2 opened in
June 1999, and the Federal funding commitment has been
fulfilled. On May 14, 1993, an FFGA was issued to the Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA)
for the third construction phase, MOS-3. MOS-3 was defined
under ISTEA (section 3034) to include three segments: the North
Hollywood segment, a 6.3-mile, three-station subway extension
of the Hollywood branch of MOS-2 to North Hollywood through the
Santa Monica mountains; the Mid-City segment, a 2.3-mile, two-
station western extension of the Wilshire Boulevard branch; and
an undefined segment of the Eastside project, to the east from
the existing Red Line terminus at Union Station. LACMTA later
defined this eastern segment as a 3.7-mile, four-station
extension under the Los Angeles River to First and Leona in
East Los Angeles. On December 28, 1994, the FFGA for MOS-3 was
amended to include this definition of the eastern segment,
bringing the total commitment of Federal new starts funds for
MOS-3 to $1,416,490. In January 1997, FTA requested that LACMTA
submit a recovery plan to demonstrate its ability to complete
MOS-2 and MOS-3, while maintaining and operating the existing
bus system. On January 14, 1998, the LACMTA Board of Directors
voted to suspend and demobilize construction on all rail
projects other than MOS-2 and the MOS-3 North Hollywood
Extension. The MTA submitted a recovery plan to FTA on May 15,
1998, which was approved by FTA on July 2, 1998. In 1998,
LACMTA undertook a Regional Transportation Alternatives
Analysis (RTAA) to analyze and evaluate feasible alternatives
for the Eastside and Mid-City corridors. The RTAA addressed
system investment priorities, allocation of resources to
operate existing transit services at a reliable standard,
assessment and management of financial risk, countywide bus
service expansion, and a process for finalizing corridor
investments. On November 9, 1998, the LACMTA Board reviewed the
RTAA and directed staff to reprogram resources previously
allocated to the Eastside and Mid-City Extensions to the
implementation of RTAA recommendations, including the LACMTA
Accelerated Bus Procurement Plan. LACMTA continued to study
transit investment options for the Eastside and Mid-City
corridors. In October 2000, FTA approved entry into preliminary
engineering for a 5.9-mile, 8-station light rail line in the
Eastside Corridor between downtown Los Angeles and East Los
Angeles. The Mid-City corridor is still undergoing alternatives
analysis. FTA will consider the prior Federal commitment under
the MOS-3 FFGA as an ``other factor'' for rating and evaluation
purposes for these projects, as long as the identified projects
otherwise meet the requirements of the new starts program. On
June 9, 1997, FTA and LACMTA negotiated a revised FFGA covering
the North Hollywood segment (Phase 1-A) of MOS-3, which opened
in June 2000. The total capital cost of the North Hollywood
project is estimated at $1,310,820, of which the revised FFGA
commits $681,040,000 in section 5309 new starts funds. Through
fiscal year 2000, a total of $581,820,000 has been appropriated
for the North Hollywood segment of MOS-3; an additional
$49,530,000 was provided in fiscal year 2001. This project has
been authorized in TEA21. The Committee has recommended
$9,289,557 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal
year 2002.
Maine Marine Highway development project.--The Maine
Department of Transportation is looking into developing a
marine transportation system that would offer an alternative to
automobile traffic. The original Marine Highway was authorized
by section 3030 of the TEA21 authorization and $2,000,000 was
appropriated for the project. Funding in 2002 will go towards
the Portland Harbor Ocean Gate Project. The Committee has
recommended $2,000,000 in new starts funding for this project
in fiscal year 2002.
Macro Vision Pioneer, Iowa, light rail feasibility
project.--The Macro Vision Pioneer Light Rail system would use
the existing track of the CRANDIC, the Iowa Northern and the CN
Railroad. It would also use vintage railcars. To complete the
plan, funds are needed for the initial design of the project, a
feasibility study, and building costs. The Committee has
recommended $100,000 in new starts funding for this project in
fiscal year 2002.
Maryland, MARC commuter rail improvement projects.--The
Maryland Mass Transit Administration is proposing three
projects for the Maryland Commuter Rail (MARC) system serving
the Baltimore, MD and Washington, DC metropolitan areas. These
projects are (1) Mid-Day Storage Facility, (2) Penn-Camden
Connection, and (3) Silver Spring Intermodal Transit Center.
The proposed Mid-Day Storage Facility would be used for daytime
equipment layover, minor repair, daily servicing and
inspections of commuter rail train sets within the Amtrak Yard
at Washington, DC's Union Station. Platforms that are currently
used to store these trains at Union Station will no longer be
available following the introduction of high-speed Amtrak
service, and the new facility will avoid the operating cost of
sending trains back to Baltimore for mid-day storage. MTA will
lease the five-acre site owned by Amtrak. Estimated capital
costs for the project total $21,000,000. The Penn-Camden
Connection is a 6-mile connection between the MARC Camden Line
and MARC Penn Line/Amtrak Northeast Corridor in southwest
Baltimore. The connection of these two commuter rail lines is
designed to achieve many benefits: the opportunity to remove
trains from the congested Camden line for reverse peak
movements; access to the planned MARC Maintenance Facility to
be located along the connection; and, increased operating
flexibility on both commuter rail lines, allowing redirection
of MARC service during periods of CSX freight operations.
Estimated capital costs for the project total $30,800,000. The
proposed Silver Spring Intermodal Transit Center, located in
suburban Washington, DC, will construct an intermodal transit
facility that relocates the Silver Spring MARC Station to the
Silver Spring Metrorail station. The transit center would allow
convenient passenger transfers between several modes of travel,
including commuter rail, heavy rail, commuter and local bus
service, taxi, bicycle, auto, and pedestrians. The center will
also accommodate the proposed Georgetown Branch Trolley to
operate between Silver Spring and Bethesda. Located in the
Silver Spring, MD central business district, a major transit
hub for lower Montgomery County, the intermodal transit center
will more efficiently meet existing and future transit needs of
this area. Estimated capital costs for the project total
$33,300,000. Section 3030(g)(2) of TEA21 authorizes these
projects as part of the Frederick extension, and will permit
service improvements necessary to take full advantage of that
extension. The proposed share of Federal funding from the
section 5309 new starts program is less than $25,000,000 for
each of the individual improvements, which renders them exempt
from evaluation. The Committee has recommended $14,000,000 in
new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
Memphis, Tennessee Medical Center Extension project.--The
Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA), in cooperation with the
City of Memphis, is proposing to build a 2-mile light rail
extension to the Main Street Trolley/Riverfront Loop village
rail system. The extension would expand service from the
central business district (CBD) east to the Medical Center
area. The line would operate on city streets in mixed traffic
and would connect with the Main Street Trolley, sharing a lane
with automobile traffic on Madison Avenue between Main Street
and Cleveland Street. Six new stations would be located along
the route. The line will be designed to accommodate light rail
vehicles, but vintage rail cars would be used until a proposed
regional LRT line is implemented and a fleet of modern LRT
vehicles is acquired. The total capital cost of this project is
estimated at $74,580,000. This project would be the last
segment of the downtown rail circulation system as well as the
first segment of a regional light rail line. This project is
included in the City of Memphis' Capital Improvement Program,
the Memphis MPO Transportation Improvement Program, and the
State Transportation Improvement Program. A Major Investment
Study/Environmental Assessment was completed in May 1997,
fulfilling the statutory requirement for an alternatives
analysis. FTA approved this project for entry into final design
in May 2000. The Memphis Corridor was authorized for final
design and construction by section 3030(a)(43) of TEA21. On
December 12, 2000 FTA issued an FFGA committing a total of
$59,670,000 in section 5309 new starts funds to the Medical
Center Extension. A total of $9,890,000 has been appropriated
for this project through fiscal year 2000; an additional
$5,940,000 was provided in fiscal year 2001. The Committee has
recommended $19,170,000 in new starts funding for this project
in fiscal year 2002.
Iowa, Metrolink light rail feasibility project.--Metrolink,
the transit agency for the bi-state Illinois-Iowa Quad City
area will conduct a detailed feasibility study for providing
rapid transit using existing rail lines. The lines being
examined on the Iowa side follow the Mississippi River in the
metropolitan area and a possible line may go to Eldridge. The
Committee provides $500,000 for this project in fiscal year
2002
Nashua, New Hampshire-Lowell, Massachusetts, commuter rail
project.--The New Hampshire Department of Transportation is
planning on constructing an 11 mile commuter rail extension
project. The rail line would connect Lowell, Massachusetts and
Nashua, New Hampshire. The project includes the rehabilitation
of track and appurtenances, construction of new track where
necessary, as well as construction of a park-and-ride lot with
a boarding platform. The new service extension will provide an
alternative to a highly congested highway corridor. This
project received funding through the TEA21 authorization as
well as through other appropriations. The Committee has
recommended $5,000,000 in new starts funding for this project
in fiscal year 2002.
Nashville, Tennessee, regional commuter rail project.--
Nashville's Regional Transportation Authority, the Metropolitan
Planning Organization, and the Metropolitan Transit Authority
have recently completed the preliminary engineering and
environmental studies. Facility upgrades and rolling stock are
needed to increase the productivity of the commuter rail line.
$6,000,000 was appropriated in fiscal year 2001 for the
Nashville Regional Commuter Rail. This project has been
authorized in TEA21. The Committee has recommended $6,000,000
in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
New Jersey/Hudson-Bergen light rail transit project.--The
New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ Transit) is constructing a
9.6-mile, 16-station light rail line along the Hudson River
Waterfront in Hudson County, from the Hoboken Terminal to 34th
Street in Bayonne and Westside Avenue in Jersey City. This line
is intended as the initial minimum operable segment (MOS-1) of
a larger 21-mile, 30-station line extending from the Vince
Lombardi park-and-ride lot in Bergen County to Bayonne, passing
through Port Imperial in Weehauken, Hoboken, and Jersey City.
The core of the completed system will serve the high-density
commercial centers in Jersey City and Hoboken, and provide
connections with NJ Transit commuter rail service, PATH trains
to Newark and Manhattan, and the Port Imperial ferry from
Weehauken to Manhattan. This initial operating segment is being
constructed under a turnkey contract to design, build, operate,
and maintain the system, which was awarded in October 1996.
Total costs are expected to be $992,140,000 for MOS-1;
construction began in December 1996. The Department issued an
FFGA on October 15, 1996 that commits $604,090,000 in section
5309 new starts funding for MOS-1. Through fiscal year 2000, a
total of $325,430,000 has been appropriated for this project.
The fiscal year 2001 appropriation provided an additional
$119,870,000. This project has been authorized in TEA21. The
Committee has recommended $151,069,771 in new starts funding
for this project in fiscal year 2002.
New Jersey, Urban Core Project.--Improvements and expansion
of platforms at the Newark Penn Station would help to
facilitate additional passenger capacity and efficiency. This
added capacity will be needed to accommodate additional
passenger loads that are expected to accompany the further
development of downtown Newark. This development includes the
location of a new professional sports complex located in
Newark. This project has been authorized in TEA21. The
Committee has recommended $3,000,000 in new starts funding for
this project in fiscal year 2002.
New Orleans, Louisiana, Canal Streetcar project.--The New
Orleans Regional Transit Authority (RTA) is developing a 5.5-
mile streetcar project in the downtown area, along the median
of Canal Street. The Canal Streetcar spine will extend from the
Canal Ferry at the Mississippi River in the central business
district, through the Mid-City neighborhood to Carrolton
Avenue, where one branch will continue on Canal Street to the
Cemeteries and another will follow Carrollton Avenue to City
Park/Beauregard Circle. The corridor is located in an existing,
built-up area that was originally developed in the streetcar
era. Much of the corridor lies within the central business
district and historic areas, where employment and housing
densities, mix of uses, and pedestrian-oriented development are
generally good. The central business district includes a high-
density mix of office, retail, hotels and leisure attractions.
The total capital cost of this project is estimated at
$156,600,000, of which RTA is expected to seek $125,300,000 (80
percent) in section 5309 new starts funding. RTA completed a
major investment study for this project in March 1995,
fulfilling the requirement for an alternatives analysis. FTA
approved entry into preliminary engineering in September 1995,
and RTA initiated final design activities in September 1997.
Final design is essentially complete, contracts for vehicle
assembly have been awarded, and construction contracts will be
awarded in early 2001. This project has been rated ``medium-
high'' for project justification and ``medium'' for local
financial commitment, earning it an overall rating of
``recommended.'' The financial rating reflects the fact that
sufficient local capital funds are now committed to this
project, as well as improvements to the stability of the agency
due to an extension in the scope of the RTA sales tax. RTA
expects to open this line in April 2004. Section 3030(a)(51) of
TEA21 authorizes the New Orleans Canal Streetcar Project for
final design and construction. To date, Congress has
appropriated a total of $55,180,000 for this project. The
Committee has recommended $23,000,000 in new starts funding for
this project in fiscal year 2002.
New York, New York, Second Avenue Subway project.--The New
York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) is planning to
develop a full-length Second Avenue subway line along the East
Side of Manhattan from 125th Street to the Financial District
in Lower Manhattan pursuant to approvals by the MTA Board and
the MTA Capital Program Review Board. The East Side of
Manhattan has only one rapid transit line (Lexington Avenue).
The line experiences significant overcrowding during peak
periods. In 1995, the line carried approximately 288,000
inbound daily passenger trips. There is limited additional
capacity to expand bus service. The specific alignment of the
full-length subway line is being developed by two coordinated
studies: Manhattan East Side Alternatives (MESA) Study and the
Lower Manhattan Access (LMA) Study. FTA is sponsoring both
studies. The MESA Study has completed a Major Investment Study/
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (MIS/DEIS) on the northern
segment of the Second Avenue subway from 125th Street to the
63rd Street subway line. The LMA Study is completing an MIS/
DEIS on the southern segment of the Second Avenue subway from
63rd Street to Lower Manhattan. FTA and the MTA are developing
an approach to complete the planning and environmental review
process for the full-length Second Avenue subway using these
two studies. The MTA has included $1,050,000,000 in its fiscal
year 2000-fiscal year 2004 Capital Program for planning,
environmental review, design and engineering, and the
initiation of construction by the end of 2004. This project has
been authorized in TEA21. The Committee has recommended
$3,000,000 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal
year 2002.
Newark, New Jersey Newark Rail Link project.--The New
Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ Transit) is planning a 1-mile,
five-station extension of the Newark City Subway light rail
line, running from Broad Street Station in Newark to Newark
Penn Station. This project is planned as the first minimum
operable segment (MOS-1) of a proposed 8.8-mile, 16-station
light rail system that will link the cities of Newark and
Elizabeth, New Jersey. The second stage is a planned 1-mile
segment from Newark Penn Station to Camp Street in downtown
Newark, and the third is the planned remaining 7-mile segment
to Elizabeth, which includes a station serving Newark
International Airport. The total cost of the MOS-1 segment is
estimated at $207,700,000. Section 3030(a)(57) of TEA21
authorized the New Jersey Urban Core Project, which consists of
eight separate elements including the Newark-Elizabeth Rail
Link, for final design and construction. On August 2, 2000 FTA
issued an FFGA committing a total of $141,950,000 in section
5309 new starts funds to the Newark Rail Link MOS-1 project.
Through fiscal year 2000, Congress has appropriated a total of
$29,680,000 for this project. An additional $9,910,000 was
provided in fiscal year 2001. The Committee has recommended
$20,000,000 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal
year 2002.
Northeast Indianapolis downtown corridor project.--The I-
69/SR37 corridor connecting Indianapolis' central business
district with its northeast suburbs is one of the fastest
growing corridors in the nation. Along with other
transportation solutions, this proposed rail project will help
alleviate the extreme traffic congestion that has resulted from
this economies expansion. This system also will help distribute
workers to job centers. In addition to this heavily congested
corridor, planners are currently examining the feasibility of a
line to the city's west side connecting with the rapidly
expanding Indianapolis International Airport. Also, the City of
Indianapolis has approved a privately-funded overhead people
mover system linking the city's major healthcare facilities,
and linkage between this system and the adjacent rail corridor
are also being examined. The Major Investment Study (MIS) and
the Draft Environmental Study (DEIS) are in the final analysis
phase, with final recommendations projected for September 2001.
There needs to be funding to continue additional study efforts
concerning the proposed airport line plus the initial design
costs. This project has been approved by the TEA21
authorization and the Major Investment Study (MIS) and the
Draft Environmental Impact Study (DEIS) should be completed in
September of 2001. The Committee has recommended $3,000,000 in
new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
Pawtucket, Rhode Island, commuter rail and maintenance
facility project.--The existing Massachusetts Bay Transit
Authority layover/storage yard at East Junction, located in the
heavily residential area in Attleboro, needs to be relocated to
a 9-acre parcel located in the northwest quadrant of I-95 and
Smithfield Avenue in Pawtucket. A six track yard with light
servicing capabilities will be constructed initially. The yard
will be designed to accommodate eight tracks and an electrified
maintenance facility in the future. The Federal share of the
project is $9,500,000 (50 percent), the rest of the project is
being funded through the Rhode Island Department of
Transportation (RIDOT) and the Massachusetts Bay Transit
Authority. TEA21 authorized $10,000,000 in section 5309 in the
FTA new start fund. To date RIDOT has received $495,321 in
fiscal year 2001 funds. The Committee has recommended
$8,000,000 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal
year 2002.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Schuylkill Valley Metro
Project.--The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
Authority (SEPTA) and the Berks Area Reading Transportation
Authority (BARTA) are conducting an Alternatives Analysis
Study/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (AA/DEIS) for the
Schuylkill Valley Corridor. The proposed corridor extends
approximately 62 miles from Philadelphia to Reading and
parallels the following major congested roadways: Schuylkill
Expressway (Interstate 76), US 422 Expressway and US Route 202.
The corridor includes the smaller cities of Norristown,
Pottstown and Phoenixville. The corridor also includes suburban
centers of King of Prussia and Great Valley, as well as
regional activity centers and attractions including Center City
Philadelphia, Art Museum, Philadelphia Zoo, King of Prussia
Malls, Valley Forge National Park and Reading outlets. The
proposed corridor encompasses three transit authorities: SEPTA,
BARTA and Pottstown Urban Transit (PUT) and two metropolitan
planning regions: Delaware Valley and Berks County. Commuter
rail service currently operates in the eastern portion of the
corridor with rail freight service operations in the western
portion of the corridor. A locally preferred alternative (LPA)
has been chosen by SEPTA and BARTA, but has not been adopted
into the fiscally constrained long-range plans of the
respective urbanized areas. The LPA would employ rail vehicle
suitable for operation on mixed-use (passenger or freight)
track, capable of one-man operation and with 15 and 30-minute
headways in the peak and off peak, respectively. Total capital
costs for the LPA are estimated at $1,400,000,000. A
preliminary DEIS is currently under review by FTA prior to its
public release before in the end of 2000. Work has commenced on
the preparation of supporting documentation for entry into
preliminary engineering (PE). Project sponsors plan to submit a
request to FTA to enter PE before the end of 2000. Through
fiscal year 2001, Congress has provided $16,810,000 in section
5309 new starts funds for the proposed Schuylkill Valley
Corridor. In addition, the Delaware Valley Regional Planning
Commission, the Philadelphia Area metropolitan planning
organization, is studying a proposed Regional Transit Oriented
Development Program in the corridor under a Transportation and
Community and System Preservation (TCSP) grant. This project
has been authorized in TEA21. The Committee has recommended
$16,000,000 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal
year 2002.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, North Shore Connector light rail
transit project.--The Port Authority of Allegheny County
(PAAC), proposes to construct a 1.6-mile light rail transit
system extension connecting the Golden Triangle and the North
Shore wholly within downtown Pittsburgh. The project would
extend the existing LRT service from the Gateway center LRT
station and the Convention Center. The North Shore connector
LRT stations and modifications of the Gateway Center and Steel
Plaat stations, and the acquisition of 10 new light rail
vehicles. The alternatives analysis was competed in early 1999
and the ``gateway LRT alternative'' was selected as the locally
preferred alternative for the North Shore connector LRT project
on August 16, 2000 by PAAC. FTA approval to initiate
preliminary engineering was granted in January 2001. Project
capital costs are estimated at $389,900,000 (escalated);
revenue service start-up is planned in 2004. Through fiscal
year 2001, Congress has appropriated $15,750,000 in section
5309 new starts funds (50 percent) for this effort. The
Committee has recommended $10,000,000 in new starts funding for
this project in fiscal year 2002.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Stage II LRT Reconstruction
project.--The Port Authority of Allegheny County (``Port
Authority'') is in the process of reconstructing Pittsburgh's
old 25-mile trolley lines to modern light rail standards. The
reconstruction is taking place in two stages. The Stage I Light
Rail Transit (LRT) project, undertaken in the 1980s, included
reconstruction of the first segment and construction of
Pittsburgh's first subway. Ground was broken on the Stage I LRT
project in December 1980, and the reconstruction of this
segment was completed in 1987. The Stage II LRT project
includes reconstruction of the remaining 12 miles of the
system, which consists of the Overbrook, Library and Drake
trolley lines, to modern LRT standards. Single-track segments
will be double-tracked, the Overbook and Drake lines (which are
currently closed) would be reopened, and 28 new light rail
vehicles would be purchased. In order to prioritize program
needs against financing requirements, Port Authority
reconfigured its rail improvement program in 1999. As a result,
the Stage II LRT project will itself be undertaken in segments.
The revised Stage II LRT Priority Program includes
reconstruction of 10.7 miles on both the Overbrook Line and a
portion of the Library Line, construction of 2,400 park-and-
ride spaces, and the purchase of 28 light rail vehicles. The
total capital cost of the Stage II Priority Program is
estimated at $386,400,000. The remaining portions of the
original Stage II LRT project will be undertaken as local
funding becomes available. Section 3030(a)(98) authorizes the
``Pittsburgh--Stage II Light Rail'' project for final design
and construction. In January 2001, FTA issued an FFGA for this
project that would commit a total of $100,200,000 in section
5309 new starts funding. Through fiscal year 2000, a total of
$11,820,000 has been appropriated for this project, and an
additional $11,890,000 was provided in fiscal year 2001. The
Committee has recommended $20,000,000 in new starts funding for
this project in fiscal year 2002.
Portland, Oregon Interstate MAX LRT Extension project.--The
Tri-County Metropolitan Transit District of Oregon (Tri-Met) is
planning a 5.8-mile, 10-station extension of the Metropolitan
Area Express (``MAX'') light rail system, which will connect
Portland's central business district with the regional
Exposition Center in north Portland. Riders will be able to
transfer between the Interstate MAX extension and the existing
33-mile East/West MAX line at the Rose Quarter station. This
line will complement regional land use plans by connecting
established residential, commercial, entertainment and other
major activity centers, and will provide a key transportation
link in the region's welfare-to-work programs. The total cost
of the Interstate MAX project is estimated at $350,000,000.
Tri-Met estimates that the Interstate MAX extension will serve
18,100 average weekday boardings and 8,400 daily new riders by
2020. On September 20, 2000, FTA and Tri-Met entered into an
FFGA that commits a total of $257,500,000 in section 5309 new
starts funds to the Interstate MAX project. This does not
include funding appropriated in prior years that was allocated
to Portland Metro for the 12-mile South-North light rail line
originally proposed for this corridor. The fiscal year 2001
appropriation provided $7,430,000 for the Interstate MAX light
rail extension. The Committee has recommended $70,000,000 in
new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
Raleigh, North Carolina, triangle transit project.--The
Phase I Regional Rail project is the first proposed segment of
a three-phased regional transit plan for linking the three
counties--Wake, Durham, and Orange--in the Triangle Region of
North Carolina. In Phase I, the Triangle Transit Authority
(TTA) intends to initiate regional rail service from Durham to
downtown Raleigh and from downtown Raleigh to North Raleigh.
TTA proposes to use Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) rail vehicles to
serve the 16 stations proposed for the Phase I of the project.
TTA has proposed that the Phase I Regional Rail Project will
use the existing North Carolina Railroad and CSX rail corridors
to connect Duke University, downtown Durham, Research Triangle
Park, RDU Airport, Morrisville, Cary, North Carolina State
University, downtown Raleigh, and North Raleigh. The proposed
project is estimated to serve 17,600 average weekday boardings
by the year 2020. The most recent capital cost estimate for
Phase I is $754,700,000 (escalated dollars). The cost estimate
includes final design, acquisition of right-of-way (ROW) and
rail vehicles, station construction, park and ride lots, and
construction of storage and maintenance facilities. The
corridor proposed to be used by TTA for the project is shared
among a number of railroads, thus, TTA is considering a number
of track realignments to accommodate proposed inter-city and
high-speed rail improvements. This project has been authorized
in TEA21. The Committee has recommended $9,000,000 in new
starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
St. Louis, Missouri, Metrolink St. Clair Extension
project.--The Bi-State Development Agency (Bi-State) is
developing a 26-mile extension of the Metrolink light rail line
from downtown East St. Louis, Illinois to the Mid-America
Airport in St. Clair County. A 17.4-mile Minimum Operable
Segment (MOS) will extend from the current Metrolink terminal
in downtown East St. Louis to Belleville Area College (now
known as Southwest Illinois College). This segment consists of
eight stations, seven park-and-ride lots, 20 new light rail
vehicles, and a new maintenance facility in East St. Louis. The
route makes extensive use of abandoned railroad rights-of-way.
Right-of-way and real estate acquisition is proceeding as
scheduled, and revenue service is scheduled to begin in 2001.
The total capital cost of the St. Clair MOS is estimated at
$339,200,000. On October 17, 1996, FTA and Bi-State entered
into an FFGA that commits a total of $243,930,000 in section
5309 new starts funding to complete the 17.4-mile MOS to
Southwest Illinois College, and provides for extending the
system to Mid-America Airport should funding become available
at a later date. The funding committed to the MOS does not
include $8,490,000 in Federal new starts funding provided prior
to fiscal year 1996, which brings total Federal funding for
this project to $252,410,000 under the new starts program.
Through fiscal year 2000, a total of $161,880,000 has been
appropriated for this project. The fiscal year 2001
appropriation provided an additional $59,440,000. The Committee
has recommended $24,223,268 in new starts funding for this
project in fiscal year 2002.
Stamford, Connecticut, urban transitway project.--The City
of Stamford, in coordination with the Connecticut Department of
Transportation (ConnDOT), and the Southwestern Regional
Planning Agency, is proposing to design and construct a one-
mile Urban Transitway. This will consist of a bus lane, shared
with high occupancy vehicles, that will provide a direct link
from Interstate 95 to the Stamford Intermodal Transportation
Center (SITC). The Urban Transitway project will include
changes to the bus routes serving the SITC, improved pedestrian
access, and the implementation of intelligent transportation
systems (ITS). The SITC serves as a major transfer point for
local bus and employer shuttle service and provides access to
existing Amtrak and Metro-North rail service in the Northeast
corridor. Currently, Metro-North operates 190 daily trains that
stop at the SITC and approximately 2,500 riders use the service
in the peak hours to commute from Stamford to New York City,
while 1,500 riders travel inbound to employment opportunities
in Stamford. To accommodate additional commuter capacity at the
SITC, the City is expanding rail platform capacity and
constructing a 1,200-space parking facility. This project has
been authorized in TEA21 under section 5309(e)(8)(A). The
Committee has recommended $4,000,000 in new starts funding for
this project in fiscal year 2002.
Salt Lake City, Utah, CBD to University LRT project.--The
Utah Transit Authority (UTA) is implementing a 2.5-mile, four-
station light rail line in eastern Salt Lake City, from the
downtown area to Rice-Eccles Stadium on the University of Utah
campus. The line would connect with the existing North/South
line at Main Street and travel east along 400 South and 500
South to the stadium. Light rail vehicles would operate on city
streets and property owned by Salt Lake City, the Utah
Department of Transportation, and the University. The line is
intended to significantly improve access to jobs, educational
opportunities, health care, and housing throughout the 400
South corridor. The CBD to University line is scaled back from
the originally proposed 10.9-mile West/East line from the
airport to the university. Total capital costs are estimated at
$105,800,000. FTA issued an FFGA for the CBD to University LRT
project on August 17, 2000, committing a total of $84,600,000
in section 5309 new starts funds. This does not include
$4,960,000 in fiscal year 2000 and prior year funding, which
brings the total amount of new starts funding for this project
to $89,560,000. An additional $1,980,000 was appropriated in
fiscal year 2001. The Committee has recommended $15,000,000 in
new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
Salt Lake City, Utah, University Medical Center LRT
extension project.--The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) has
completed construction of a 15-mile light rail transit (LRT)
line from downtown Salt Lake City to the southern suburbs. The
line opened for regular weekday service on December 6, 1999.
The system operates on city streets downtown (2 miles) and then
follows a lightly-used railroad alignment owned by UTA to the
suburban community of Sandy (13 miles). A 2.5 mile light rail
line extension is under construction connecting the Salt Lake
City CBD with Rice-Eccles stadium located at the western edge
of the University of Utah campus. The Committee notes that the
University of Utah, the University Medical Center and
associated facilities constitute one of Utah's largest traffic
generation points. Significant ridership will be served by this
project which will add 3 stations and 1.5 miles of track
extending from Rice-Eccles stadium to the University Medical
Center. The Committee has recommended $6,000,000 in new starts
funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
Salt Lake City, Utah, Salt Lake City-Ogden-Provo Commuter
Rail project.--The Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) and
the Moutainlands Association of Governments (MAG) the two
metropolitan planning organizations that oversee transportation
planning for more than 85 percent of the State of Utah's
population, along with the Utah Transit Authority and the Utah
Department of Transportation, are conducting an Alternatives
Analysis (Inter-Regional Corridor Alternatives Analysis) study
to evaluate transportation improvements in a proposed 120-mile
corridor from Brigham City to Payson. The corridor encompasses
the Ogden, Salt Lake City and Provo/Orem urbanized areas. The
study is evaluating highway and transit alternatives in the
corridor. The study is scheduled for completion in March 2001.
WFRC and MAG completed a Long-Range Transit Analysis in 1998,
identifying commuter rail as an effective means of serving the
transportation demands in the corridor between Brigham City and
Payson. A commuter rail line, with twelve stations, has been
identified and evaluated and subsequently included in the
region's Long Range Transportation Plan. Discussions are
underway with the Union-Pacific Railroad concerning the
acquisition of railroad right-of-way to implement commuter
rail, light rail or other transportation improvements. Total
capital costs are estimated at $292,000,000. Through fiscal
year 2001, Congress has appropriated $3,900,000 in section 5309
new starts funds for this effort. Consideration has been given
to a proposed option of implementing interim commuter rail
service during the Olympic 2002 Winter Games. The Committee has
recommended $2,000,000 in new starts funding for this project
in fiscal year 2002.
San Diego, California, Mission Valley East LRT Extension
project.--The Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) is
constructing a 5.9-mile, 4-station light rail extension of its
existing Blue Line, from east of Interstate 15 to the City of
La Mesa, where it will connect to the existing Orange Line near
Baltimore Drive. The Mission Valley East line will serve four
new and two existing stations, and would include elevated, at-
grade, and tunnel portions. The project includes two park and
ride lots and a new access road between Waring Road and the
Grantville Station. The corridor runs parallel to Interstate 8
in eastern San Diego and La Mesa, and is characterized by a mix
of low- to moderate-density industrial, residential, and
commercial uses, but includes several major activity centers
such as San Diego State University, the Grossmont regional
shopping center, Kaiser Hospital, the Alvarado Medical Center,
and the Grantville employment area. Over 24,000 jobs and nearly
10,000 residences are located within walking distance of the
proposed stations, and existing zoning is generally supportive
of transit. Total capital costs are estimated at $431,000,000.
On June 22, 2000, FTA issued an FFGA committing a total of
$329,960,000 in section 5309 new starts funding to this
project. Through fiscal year 2000, Congress has appropriated
$22,110,000 for this project, and an additional $31,210,000 was
provided in fiscal year 2001. The Committee has recommended
$65,000,000 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal
year 2002.
San Francisco, California, BART Extension to SFO Airport
project.--Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) in San Francisco and
the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) are
constructing an 8.7-mile, 4-station extension of the BART rapid
transit system to serve San Francisco International Airport
(SFO). The project consists of a 7.5-mile mainline extension
from the existing BART station at Colma, through Colma, south
San Francisco, and San Bruno, terminating at the Millbrae
Avenue BART/CalTrain Station. An additional 1.2-mile spur from
the main line north of Millbrae will take BART trains directly
into the airport, to a station adjoining the new International
Terminal. The San Francisco International Airport is a major
partner in this project. All structures and facilities to be
constructed on airport property, and installation of related
equipment, are being funded, designed and constructed by the
airport for BART. This project is also part of the FTA Turnkey
Demonstration Program to determine if the design/build approach
will reduce implementation time and cost. On July 24, 1997, the
first contract was awarded for site preparation and utility
relocation associated with this project. Bids for the main
contract for construction of the line, trackwork and related
systems were opened on November 25, 1997. On June 30, 1997, FTA
entered into an FFGA for the BART-SFO extension, committing a
total of $750,000,000 in Federal new starts funds to the
project; total capital costs at that time were estimated at
$1,054,000,000. The total cost has since increased to an
estimated $1,510,200,000; a recent surge in local construction
activity has resulted in higher than estimated costs for
construction of this project. Per the terms of the FFGA, any
cost increases are the responsibility of the local project
sponsors. Thus, the original Federal commitment is unchanged at
$750,000,000. Through fiscal year 2000, a total of $217,190,000
has been appropriated for this project. An additional
$79,250,000 was provided in fiscal year 2001. This project has
been authorized in TEA21. The Committee has recommended
$80,605,331 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal
year 2002.
San Jose, California, Tasman West LRT project.--The Santa
Clara County Transit District (SCCTD) is implementing a 12.4-
mile light rail system from northeast San Jose to downtown
Mountain View, connecting with both the Guadalupe LRT in
northern Santa Clara County and the Caltrain commuter rail
system. The project is proceeding in two phases: the Phase 1
West Extension will connect the northern terminus of the
Guadalupe Light Rail System in Santa Clara with the Caltrain
Commuter Rail station in downtown Mountain View, a distance of
7.6 miles; the future Phase 2 East Extension will complete the
remaining 4.8 miles. The total capital cost of the Phase 1 West
project was $325,000,000. Construction is complete and the
Phase I West Extension opened for revenue service on December
17, 1999, a year ahead of schedule. The Phase II East Extension
is being funded with State and local funds. An FFGA was issued
for Phase 1 of this project on July 2, 1996, providing a total
of $182,750,000 in section 5309 new starts funding. A total of
$170,500,000 was provided in fiscal year 2000 and prior years,
and an additional $12,140,000 was provided in fiscal year 2001.
The Committee has recommended $113,336 in new starts funding
for this project in fiscal year 2002.
San Juan/Tren Urbano.--The Puerto Rico Department of
Transportation and Public Works (DTPW) is constructing a 10.7-
mile, 16-station rapid rail line between Bayamon Centro and the
Sagrado Corazon area of Santurce in the San Juan metropolitan
area. The system consists of a double-track line operating over
at-grade and elevated rights-of-way with a short below-grade
segment, and a maintenance facility. When complete, this system
is expected to carry 113,300 riders per day by 2010. This
project has been selected as one of FTA's turnkey demonstration
projects, which incorporates contracts to design, build,
operate, and maintain the system. During 1996 and 1997, seven
contracts were awarded under the turnkey procurement. The total
capital cost of this project is now estimated at
$1,653,600,000. On March 13, 1996, FTA entered into an FFGA
committing $307,410,000 in section 5309 new starts funds to
this project, out of a total project cost of $1,250,000,000.
This did not include $4,960,000 in Federal new starts funding
provided prior to fiscal year 1996, which brings total Federal
new starts funding for this project to $312,370,000. This FFGA
was amended in July 1999 to include two additional stations and
10 additional railcars. This amendment included $141,000,000 in
section 5307 funds and $259,900,000 in flexible funding; no
additional section 5309 new starts funds were committed. A
total of $84,630,000 in section 5309 funds has been allocated
to the Tren Urbano project in fiscal year 2000 and prior years,
and an additional $74,300,000 was appropriated in fiscal year
2001. The Committee has recommended $50,149,000 in new starts
funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
Scranton, Pennsylvania, rail service to New York City.--The
Scranton to New York City Passenger Rail Service project
involves the addition of new passenger rail service with a
total of eight station stops--five in Pennsylvania (Scranton,
Mt. Pocono, Stroudsburg, East Stroudsburg, and Deleware Water
Gap) and three in New Jersey (Morristown, the Oranges, and
Hoboken). When completed, the rail line is expected to carry
684,000 riders annually. Freight track already exists along
much of this route, with the exception of a 26-mile stretch in
New Jersey from the Deleware Water Gap to Port Morris. The goal
of this project is to provide commuters with an alternate
source of public transportation in New York City while reducing
congestion along I-80. The Committee has recommended $2,500,000
in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
Puget Sound, Washington, Sounder Commer Rail project.--
Sound Transit, the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit
Authority, is implementing commuter rail service along the 82-
mile existing rail corridor between Lakewood and Everett,
Washington. When the Sound Move enabling legislation is fully
implemented, Sounder will serve 13 stations along the corridor,
connecting commuters with local and regional bus service, the
Washington State ferry system, Amtrak, the Central Link light
rail system, and Tacoma Link. Currently, Sounder commuter rail
is providing weekday service during peak hours at seven
stations between downtown Tacoma and Seattle. Once in full
operation, 18 trains will serve the Lakewood-Tacoma-Seattle
Sounder segment, and 12 trains will serve the Everett-Seattle
segment. By 2020, Sounder is estimated to carry 18,800 daily
riders. To date, $60,850,000 has been appropriated for the 82-
mile corridor. For fiscal year 2002, the bill includes
$24,500,000 for Sounder commuter rail to develop facilities
between Tacoma and Lakewood to the south.
Sioux City, Iowa, light rail project.--A feasibility study
was conducted in fiscal year 1998 regarding a light rail
project in Sioux City. Sioux City Transit is now waiting for
the final steps to complete this project. It has been
authorized in TEA21 for a total of $10,000,000. The Committee
has recommended $3,500,000 in new starts funding for this
project in fiscal year 2002.
Stockton, California, Altamont Commuter Rail project.--The
San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC), the Alameda
Congestion Management Agency, and the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority have proposed to implement a commuter
rail system along an existing Union-Pacific Railroad right-of-
way operating between the three counties. A Joint Powers Board
comprised of members from each of the three agencies was also
created to operate the proposed Altamont Commuter Express. The
SJRRC would be the managing agency for the initial 36-month
term of an agreement executed between the three agencies. In
addition to identifying potential sources for capital and
operating funds, the member agencies will define the methods
for allocating future costs and the shares of future capital
improvement contributions from the member agencies. Through
fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $6,910,000 in
section 5309 new starts funds for this effort. The Committee
has recommended $5,000,000 in new starts funding for this
project in fiscal year 2002.
Twin Cities, Minnesota, Hiawatha corridor project.--Metro
Transit and the Metropolitan Council (local metropolitan
planning organization), in cooperation with the Minnesota
Department of Transportation (MnDOT), Hennepin County and the
Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), are proposing to design
and construct an 11.6-mile Light Rail Transit (LRT) line within
the Hiawatha Corridor. The proposed LRT will operate on the
Hiawatha Avenue/Trunk Highway 55 Corridor linking downtown
Minneapolis, the Minneapolis-St. Paul (MSP) International
Airport, and the Mall of America (MOA) in Bloomington. The LRT
is the transit component of a Locally Preferred Alternative,
which includes the reconstruction of TH-55 as a four lane at-
grade arterial between Franklin Avenue and 59th Street and
construction of an interchange between TH-55 and TH-62
(Crosstown Highway). Current plans call for the north end of
the LRT to begin in the Central Business District (CBD) and
operate on the existing transit mall along 5th Street. The LRT
is planned to exit the CBD near the Hubert Humphrey Metrodome,
following the former Soo Line Railroad to Franklin Avenue then
generally parallel Hiawatha Avenue. The project will include a
1.8-mile tunnel to be constructed under the MSP airport runways
and taxiways with the construction of one underground station
and one at-grade station. The Metropolitan Airports Commission
(MAC) will be responsible for the portion of the line that
impacts the MSP, including the tunnel and stations. The line is
then planned to emerge from the tunnel on the West Side of the
airport and continue south with three proposed stations in
Bloomington, including a station serving the Mall of America
(MOA). The estimated capital cost for the 11.6-mile Hiawatha
Corridor LRT, including 17 proposed stations, totals
$675,400,000 (escalated dollars). The project is expected to
serve 24,800 average weekday boardings by the year 2020; 19,300
average weekday boardings are projected in the opening year.
This project has been authorized in TEA21. The Committee has
recommended $50,000,000 in new starts funding for this project
in fiscal year 2002.
Virginia, Burke Center VRE Station.--This project would
include the design and construction of the expansion of the
existing 543 space surface parking lot. Utilization is
averaging 95 percent and is steadily increasing as VRE's
ridership is increasing. The need for an increased space for
parking is a result of improved road access to the station; new
higher capacity coaches being placed in service by VRE; and new
transit fare discounts being offered to attract more public
transportation users. A feasibility study, currently in the
planing stage, will determine whether a surface or structured
facility is needed. VRE received $3,000,000 in fiscal year
2001. The Committee has recommended a total of $4,000,000 in
new starts funding for this and other VRE improvements in
fiscal year 2002.
Wasilla, Alaska, alternate route project.--The current
population density in the Parks Highway corridor in the Wasilla
area will support commuter rail operations if the trip time for
the Alaska Railroad can be reduced by track improvements and
relocations. This project has been authorized in TEA21. The
Committee recommendation provides $2,500,000 for track
upgrades, relocations, and signalizations to foster the
development of the Alaska Railroad commuter rail service to
Wasilla, Alaska.
Wilmington, Delaware, Wilmington Transit Connector
project.--The Delaware Department of Transportation and the
City of Wilmington conducted a study to address transportation
needs between major employment, commercial and entertainment
venues in the city. The locally preferred alternative is a
trolley line, approximately 2.1 miles in length, 0.6 miles of
exclusive right-of-way. Total capital costs are currently
estimated at $37,000,000. No environmental work has been
undertaken for this effort. Work is underway, in consultation
with FTA, in revising and supplementing the existing materials
to support a request to FTA for entry into preliminary
engineering. Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has
appropriated $5,930,000 in new starts funds for this effort.
The Committee has recommended $4,000,000 in new starts funding
for this project in fiscal year 2002.
Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System Project.--The
Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS) is a fixed
route transit system providing service between and among the
Yosemite region's gateway communities and Yosemite National
Park. YARTS is a joint powers authority formed by the counties
of Merced, Mono and Mariposa with transportation to visitors
and workers of the park. Funds would be used to help increase
participation in the YARTS program, which served 20,000
individuals last year. The Committee has recommended $500,000
in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.

Job Access and Reverse Commute Grants

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General fund Trust fund Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001 \1\........................................ $20,000,000 $80,000,000 $100,000,000
Budget estimate, 2002........................................... 25,000,000 100,000,000 125,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................ 25,000,000 100,000,000 125,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect rescission of $220,000 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106-554.

The Committee recommends $125,000,000 for the Job Access
and Reverse Commute Grants program, the level guaranteed under
the TEA21 transit category firewall. This program is meant to
help welfare reform efforts succeed by providing enhanced
transportation services for low-income individuals, including
former welfare recipients, traveling to jobs or training
centers.
The program makes competitive grants to qualifying
metropolitan planning organizations, local governmental
authorities, agencies, and nonprofit organizations in urbanized
areas with populations greater than 200,000. Grants may not be
used for planning or coordination activities.
The Committee recommends the following allocations of job
access and reverse commute grant program funds in fiscal year
2002:

Project Amount

AC Transit, California.................................. $2,000,000
Allegheny County Port Authority, Pennsylvania........... 2,000,000
Atlanta Regional Commission, Georgia.................... 1,000,000
Austin, Texas........................................... 500,000
Baton Rouge, Louisiana.................................. 750,000
Buncombe County, North Carolina......................... 100,000
Central Arkansas Transit Authority, Arkansas............ 500,000
Central Ohio Transit Authority, Ohio.................... 1,000,000
Charlotte Area Transit, North Carolina.................. 500,000
Chicago Regional Transportation Authority, Illinois..... 500,000
Corpus Christi Regional Transit Authority, Texas........ 550,000
Galveston, Texas........................................ 600,000
Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation, Indiana. 1,000,000
Jefferson County, Alabama............................... 2,000,000
Kenai Peninsula Transit Planning, Alaska................ 500,000
Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.......................... 198,000
Lehigh and Northampton Transportation Authority,
Pennsyl-
vania............................................... 250,000
Los Angeles County, California.......................... 2,000,000
Macon/Bibb County, Georgia.............................. 400,000
MASCOT Matanuska, Susitna Valley, Alaska................ 200,000
Mass Transportation Authority, Michigan................. 1,000,000
Oglala Sioux Tribe, North Dakota........................ 150,000
Phoenix Regional Transportation, Arizona................ 240,000
Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority, New
York................................................ 400,000
Sacramento Area Council of Governments, California...... 2,000,000
Salem Area Transit, Oregon.............................. 700,000
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, California. 500,000
Santa Fe, New Mexico.................................... 630,000
Southeast Missouri Council, Missouri.................... 2,000,000
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority,
Pennsylvania........................................ 6,000,000
State of Connecticut.................................... 3,500,000
State of Delaware....................................... 750,000
State of Idaho.......................................... 300,000
State of Iowa........................................... 1,700,000
State of Maryland....................................... 5,000,000
State of New Jersey..................................... 3,000,000
State of New Mexico..................................... 2,000,000
State of Ohio........................................... 1,500,000
State of Oklahoma....................................... 4,500,000
State of Pennsylvania................................... 1,500,000
State of Rhode Island................................... 2,000,000
State of Tennessee...................................... 6,000,000
State of Washington..................................... 3,000,000
State of West Virginia.................................. 800,000
State of Wisconsin...................................... 5,200,000
Seward Transit Service, Alaska.......................... 200,000
Tri-Met Region, Oregon.................................. 1,800,000
Tuscaloosa, Alabama..................................... 1,000,000
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority,
Washington,
DC.................................................. 2,500,000
Westchester County, New York............................ 500,000

State of Maryland.--The Committee provides $5,000,000 to
the Maryland Department of Transportation for Section 3037 Job
Access and Reverse Commute Grants. The Committee expects
Maryland Department of Transportation to fund the following
project: (1) $800,000 to Montgomery County to operate the
County's transit system during expanded hours of service; (2)
$200,000 to Sojourner-Douglass College in Baltimore, Maryland
for the College's Workforce Transportation and Referral.

SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (the
Corporation) is a wholly owned Government corporation
established by the Saint Lawrence Seaway Act of May 13, 1954.
The Corporation is responsible for the operation, maintenance,
and development of the United States portion of the Saint
Lawrence Seaway between Montreal and Lake Erie. The
Corporation's major priorities include: safety, reliability,
trade development, and management accountability.

Operations and Maintenance

(Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund)

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................ $13,004,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 13,345,000
Committee recommendation................................ 13,345,000

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $28,609 pursuant to section 1403 of
Public Law 106-554.

Appropriations from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and
revenues from non-federal sources finances the operation and
maintenance of the Seaway for which the corporation is
responsible.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $13,345,000 to fully
fund the operations and maintenance of the Corporation. The
Committee recommendation provides sufficient funding for the
Corporation's highest capital priorities and the projects
recommended by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers after its
survey and evaluation of the Corporation's lock and maintenance
practices. The Committee requests a report on the Seaway's
efforts at ballast water management and its efforts to
coordinate with the Coast Guard to control non-indigenous
aquatic nuisance species.

RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION

The Research and Special Programs Administration [RSPA] was
established by the Secretary of Transportation's organizational
changes dated July 20, 1977, and serves as a research,
analytical, and technical development arm of the Department for
multimodal research and development, as well as special
programs. Particular emphasis is given to pipeline
transportation and the transportation of hazardous cargo by all
modes. In 2002, resources are requested for the management and
execution of the Offices of Hazardous Materials Safety,
Emergency Transportation, Pipeline Safety, and program and
administrative support. Funds are also requested for the
emergency preparedness grants program. RSPA's two reimbursable
programs--Transportation Safety Institute [TSI] and the Volpe
National Transportation Systems Center [VNTSC]--support
research safety and security programs for all modes of
transportation.

Research and Special Programs

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................ $36,373,000
Budget estimate, 2002 \2\............................... 41,993,000
Committee recommendation................................ 41,993,000

\1\ Does not reflect rescission of $80,021 pursuant to Public Law 106-
554.
\2\ Does not includes reduction of $12,000,000 in proposed user fees.

The Committee has provided a total of $41,993,000 for the
``Research and special programs'' account, which is the same as
the budget request.
The following table summarizes the Committee
recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
2001 enacted Fiscal year Committee
\1\ 2002 estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous materials safety...................................... $18,750,000 $21,217,000 $21,217,000
(FTE)....................................................... (129) (132) (132)
Emergency transportation........................................ $1,831,000 $1,897,000 $1,897,000
(FTE)....................................................... (9) (9) (9)
Research and technology......................................... $4,700,000 $4,759,000 $4,759,000
(FTE)....................................................... (9) (9) (9)
Program and administrative support.............................. $11,092,000 $14,060,000 $14,060,000
(FTE)....................................................... (50) (57) (57)
-----------------------------------------------
Total, research and special programs...................... $36,373,000 $41,993,000 $41,993,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect $80,021 rescission pursuant to Public Law 106-554.

hazardous materials safety

The Office of Hazardous Materials Safety [OHMS] administers
a nationwide program of safety regulations to fulfill the
Secretary's duty to protect the Nation from the risks to life,
health, and property that are inherent in the transportation of
hazardous materials by water, air, highway, and railroad. OHMS
plans, implements, and manages the hazardous materials
transportation program consisting of information systems,
research and analysis, inspection and enforcement, rulemaking
support, training and information dissemination, and emergency
procedures.
The Committee recommends $21,217,000 for hazardous
materials safety, which is the same as the budget request.

Emergency transportation

Emergency transportation [ET] programs provide support to
the Secretary of Transportation for his statutory and
administrative responsibilities in the area of transportation
civil emergency preparedness and response. This program
develops and coordinates the Department's policies, plans, and
programs, in headquarters and the field to provide for
emergency preparedness.
ET is responsible for implementing the Transportation
Department's National Security Program initiatives, including
an assessment of the transportation implications of the
changing global threat. The Office also coordinates civil
emergency preparedness and response for transportation services
during national and regional emergencies, across the entire
continuum of crises, including natural catastrophes such as
earthquakes, hurricanes and tornados, and international and
domestic terrorism. The Office of Emergency Transportation
develops crisis management plans to mitigate disasters and
implements these plans nationally and regionally in an
emergency.
The Committee recommends $1,897,000 for emergency
transportation, which is the same as the budget request.

Research and technology

The Committee recommends $4,759,000 for the Office of
Research and Technology, which is the same as the budget
request. The funds provided will help the Department coordinate
and strengthen its responsibilities under TEA21, and will help
support the R&T organizational excellence strategy specified in
the Department's strategic plan, allow RSPA to support the
intergovernmental transportation research coordination
responsibilities of the National Science and Technology
Council, and support a limited intermodal research program.
The Committee supports the request for R&D planning. These
funds are used to conduct a diversity of activities of
fundamental importance to the Department and to help coordinate
transportation-related research throughout the Government. For
example, these funds are used to support technology transfer
and in particular to ensure that R&T advances made in the
international arena are made available to various modes within
the Department. These planning funds are the sole source for
longer-term, visionary R&T planning in the Department. In
addition, these funds are used to support research and
education planning that applies to all of the modes. Most
importantly, one of the key purposes of these funds is to
eliminate any duplication of research within the DOT.
Research and development program initiatives.--The National
Transportation Safety Board has recommended to the Department
of Transportation that research be conducted on the role of
fatigue in the transportation industry. Consistent with that
recommendation, the Committee has provided $300,000, which is
the amount requested for R&D planning and management to support
long-term, cross-cutting research on transportation operator
fatigue management.

Program and administrative support

The program support function provides legal, financial,
management, and administrative support to the operating offices
within RSPA. These support activities include executive
direction (Office of the Administrator), program and policy
support, civil rights and special programs, legal services and
support, and management and administration.
The Committee has provided $14,060,000 for program and
administrative support, which is consistent with the budget
request.
Business modernization.--The Committee's allowance includes
the 7 FTEs (all 14 new positions to be funded at .5 FTE each)
and the $2,600,000 requested for business modernization. This
new initiative is required to ensure that both the pipeline
safety and hazardous materials transportation programs are
underpinned with information technologies and administrative
support that will promote effective program implementation.
RSPA, compared to its sister agencies, has not received the
funding needed to build the information technology (IT)
infrastructure--servers, communications lines, security
apparatus--to become citizen-centered in the Internet era.
Without this IT infrastructure, the public is forced to rely on
less than satisfactory ways to request and receive information
on the location of pipelines so they can make intelligent
decisions about where to build schools, hospitals, and high-
density housing. Without this infrastructure, companies
reporting hazardous materials incidents or pipeline failures
will continue to have to report these releases using paper
forms instead of using the Internet. Without this
infrastructure, companies and individuals will have to continue
filing applications for hazardous materials registration,
exemptions, and approvals by mail, fax, or phone instead of
over the Internet.
The Committee directs RSPA to submit to both the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations before February 1, 2002, a
strategic plan outlining the improvements in IT that will be
made during the next few years. The plan will specify the
necessary steps to be taken and funds needed to ensure that
RSPA's missions and activities will be underpinned by a current
IT with the capability for upgrading. Obligations for most
infrastructure improvements will not be made until such a plan
has been submitted.
The Committee also directs that RSPA use the additional
funds and positions recommended herein to ensure that the
financial management of each its accounts is brought under the
direct control of the agency. As soon as possible, but before
the end of fiscal year 2002, RSPA will conduct all of its own
accounting functions, with perhaps the exception of minor
disbursement activities that may be contracted to FAA. This
transfer of responsibility will allow the Office of Pipeline
Safety (OPS) to exercise improved management over the Pipeline
Safety Fund and will help that office respond to
recommendations issued by the General Accounting Office.
User fees.--The Committee disagrees with the budget request
to begin funding the hazardous materials safety program from
user fees. These fees are not authorized under current law.

Pipeline Safety

(Pipeline Safety Fund)

(Oilspill Liability Trust Fund)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pipeline
safety fund Trust fund Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001 \1\ \2\.................................... $39,556,000 $7,488,000 $47,044,000
Budget estimate, 2002........................................... 46,286,000 7,472,000 53,758,000
Committee recommendation \3\.................................... 47,278,000 11,472,000 58,750,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect rescission of $103,497 pursuant to Public Law 106-554.
\2\ Pipeline safety funding includes $3,000,000 from reserve fund balances.
\3\ Pipeline safety funding includes $2,500,000 from reserve fund balances.

The Research and Special Programs Administration is
responsible for the Department's Pipeline Safety Program.
Funding for the Office of Pipeline Safety is made available
from two primary sources: the pipeline safety fund, comprised
of user fees assessed on interstate pipeline operators; and the
oil spill liability trust fund, a revolving fund comprised of
an environmental tax on petroleum and oil spill damage recovery
payments. The Pipeline Safety Program promotes the safe,
reliable, and environmentally sound transportation of natural
gas and hazardous liquids by pipeline. This national program
regulates the design, construction, operation, maintenance, and
emergency response procedures pertaining to gas and hazardous
liquids pipeline systems and liquefied natural gas facilities.
Also included is research and development to support the
Pipeline Safety Program and grants-in-aid to State agencies
that conduct a qualified pipeline safety program and to others
who operate one-call programs.
The Committee's recommendation for the Federal pipeline
safety program generally supports, and is consistent with, the
key provisions of the Senate-passed version of the pipeline
safety reauthorization bill. The Committee recommends
$58,750,000 for the Department's Pipeline Safety Program, which
is $4,992,000 more than the budget estimate. The bill specifies
that, of the total appropriation, $47,278,000 shall be from the
pipeline safety fund and $11,472,000 shall be from the oil
spill liability trust fund. Specific adjustments to the budget
estimate are listed below:

Change to
Item budget estimate

Integrity management.................................... +$3,000,000
Research and development................................ +1,992,000

As indicated below, the Committee has added funds above the
request to ensure a strong foundation for OPS initiatives to
advance integrity management of pipeline systems and to provide
for a stronger research and development program. The increased
use of the reserve in the Pipeline Safety Fund and the
increased use of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund will
provide for an equitable fee assessment on both the interstate
liquid and natural gas transmission companies.
Pipeline safety reserve fund.--The Committee recommends
$2,500,000 to be derived from amounts previously collected in
pipeline user fees from interstate liquid and natural gas
transmission companies, which are maintained in a reserve fund
by RSPA. As of May 5, 2001 the balance in the fund is
approximately $11,915,000.
Oil spill liability trust fund.--The Committee recommends
$11,472,000 to be derived from the oil spill liability trust
fund for implementation of OPS responsibilities under the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), which is $4,000,000 more than the
administration's request. OPS estimates that the total amount
of the fiscal year 2002 pipeline safety budget request that
could legally be associated with OPA program requirements is
$14,797,000.
Integrity Management Program.--The Committee recommends
$7,943,000 for integrity management, which is $3,000,000 more
than the amount requested. According to OPS, the integrity
management regulations covering natural gas transmission and
hazardous liquid pipelines constitute the single largest
modification to the Federal pipeline regulatory and oversight
program in over a decade. The additional funds are needed to
ensure proper implementation of the new hazardous liquids
pipeline safety regulations, which become effective on January
1, 2002, and to lay the foundation for a similar regulatory
strategy to cover the gas pipeline industry. In addition to new
inspectors, OPS will need new regulatory, legal, contractual,
and administrative support in the field and at headquarters to
maximize the effectiveness of this critical oversight program.
The Committee's allowance for the integrity management
program includes $750,000 for OPS and State training, and
adequate funds to interpret pigging data submitted by industry,
to witness new construction of pipelines, and to develop
improved information systems needed to monitor and evaluate
industry data supplied to OPS.
New positions.--The Committee has approved OPS's request
for 26 new positions to support a new community based program
and to support the new integrity management program.
Research and development.--The Committee recommends
$4,736,000 for pipeline safety research, which is $1,992,000
more than the amount requested. Within the funds provided,
$600,000 shall be used for airborne environmental laser mapping
technology research and engineering to support improved leak
detection, analysis, and response by Federal, State, and
industry pipeline safety officials.
Washington State Pipeline Safety Program.--Any amount of
the $800,000 unobligated in fiscal year 2001 for the Washington
State Pipeline Safety Program will be obligated in fiscal year
2002. The Committee recommends that RSPA obligate the $800,000
as soon as possible.

Emergency Preparedness Grants

(Emergency Preparedness Fund)

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................ $200,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 200,000
Committee recommendation................................ 200,000

\1\ Does not reflect rescission of $440 pursuant to Public Law 106-554.

The hazardous materials transportation law (title 49 U.S.C.
5101 et seq.) requires RSPA to: (1) develop and implement a
reimbursable emergency preparedness grants program; (2) monitor
public sector emergency response training and planning and
provide technical assistance to States, territories, and Indian
tribes; and (3) develop and update periodically a national
training curriculum for emergency responders. These activities
are financed by receipts received from the hazardous materials
shipper and carrier registration fees, which are placed in the
emergency preparedness fund. The hazardous materials
transportation law provides permanent authorization for the
emergency preparedness fund for planning and training grants,
monitoring and technical assistance, and for administrative
expenses. An appropriation of $200,000 in budget authority,
also from the emergency preparedness fund, provides for the
training curriculum for emergency responders.

LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

Bill language is included that limits the obligation of
emergency preparedness training grants to $14,300,000 in fiscal
year 2002. The Committee's recommendation reflects the State
grants total funding that would be represented if the
administration's fiscal year 2001 requested level was met.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Salaries and Expenses

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................ $48,450,000
Budget estimate, 2002 \2\............................... 50,614,000
Committee recommendation................................ 50,614,000

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $108,790 pursuant to section 1403 of
Public Law 106-554. Does not include reimbursement of $3,524,000 from
the FHWA and transfer of $1,000,000 from FTA pursuant to Public Law 106-
346.
\2\ Does not include reimbursements of $5,524,000 from FHWA and FTA.

The Inspector General Act of 1978 established the Office of
Inspector General [OIG] as an independent and objective
organization, with a mission to: (1) conduct and supervise
audits and investigations relating to the programs and
operations of the Department; (2) provide leadership and
recommend policies designed to promote economy, efficiency, and
effectiveness in the administration of programs and operations;
(3) prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse; and (4) keep
the Secretary and Congress currently informed regarding
problems and deficiencies.
OIG is divided into two major functional units: the Office
of Assistant Inspector General for Auditing and the Office of
Assistant Inspector General for Investigations. The assistant
inspectors general for auditing and investigations are
supported by headquarters and regional staff.
The Committee recommends $50,614,000.

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

Salaries and Expenses

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crediting
Appropriation offsetting
collections
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2001 \1\............. $17,954,000 ($900,000)
Budget estimate, 2002................ 18,457,000 (950,000)
Committee recommendation............. 18,457,000 (950,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $37,519 pursuant to section 1403 of
Public Law 106-554.

The Surface Transportation Board was created on January 1,
1996, by Public Law 104-88, the Interstate Commerce Committee
Termination Act of 1995. Consistent with the continued trend
toward less regulation of the surface transportation industry,
the act abolished the ICC, eliminated certain functions that
had previously been implemented by the ICC, transferred core
rail and certain other functions to the Board, and transferred
motor licensing and certain other motor functions to DOT and
are now being administered by FMCSA. The Board is specifically
responsible for the regulation of the rail and pipeline
industries and certain nonlicensing regulation of motor
carriers and water carriers. Moreover, the Board, through its
exemption authority, is able to promote deregulation
administratively on a case-by-case basis. Rail reforms made by
the Staggers Rail Act of 1980 also have been continued.
The administration's fiscal year 2002 program request is
$18,457,000 to perform key functions under the ICCTA, including
rail rate reasonableness oversight; the processing of rail
consolidations, abandonments, and constructions, other
restructuring proposals; and labor arbitration appeals.
The Committee has provided $18,457,000 for activities of
the Board with $950,000 provide from the collection of user
fees. The Board is authorized to credit the fees collected to
the appropriated amount as offsetting collections and to be
used for authorized expenses.
The Committee's recommendation will fund a total of 143
full-time staff equivalent (FTE) positions, if the Board
collects the full $950,000 in user fees. Between now and
September 30, 2002, 34 percent of the Board's employees will be
eligible for voluntary retirement. The Committee encourages the
Board to move expeditiously in filling vacancies as retirements
occur in order to ensure that the oversight functions of the
Board are not compromised.
Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad (DM&E).--For more than
3 years, the Surface Transportation Board has been considering
an application on the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad. The
Committee believes that the board should complete action on
this proceeding. A petitioner has a legitimate expectation of
receiving a decision on an application within a reasonable
period of time.

TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES

ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD

Salaries and Expenses

Appropriations, 2001 \1\................................ $4,795,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 5,015,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,015,000

\1\ Does not include reduction of $11,000 pursuant to section 301 of
Public Law 106-113.

The Committee recommends $5,015,000 for the operations of
the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board,
the funding level requested by the administration.
The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance
Board (the Access Board) is the lead Federal Agency promoting
accessibility for all handicapped persons. The Access Board was
reauthorized in the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992,
Public Law 102-569. Under this authorization, the Access
Board's functions are to ensure compliance with the
Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, and to develop guidelines
for and technical assistance to individuals and entities with
rights or duties under titles II and III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The Access Board establishes minimum
accessibility guidelines and requirements for public
accommodations and commercial facilities, transit facilities
and vehicles, State and local government facilities, children's
environments, and recreational facilities. The Access Board
also provides technical assistance to Government agencies,
public and private organizations, individuals, and businesses
on the removal of accessibility barriers.
The Committee's recommendation provides adequate funding to
support 32.8 FTE, 2 FTE more than the fiscal year 2000 staffing
level, consistent with the Board's budget request.

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

Salaries and Expenses

Appropriations, 2001.................................... $62,942,000
Budget estimate, 2002................................... 64,480,000
Committee recommendation................................ 70,000,000

The Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 established the
National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB] as an independent
Federal agency to promote transportation safety by conducting
independent accident investigations. In addition, the act
authorizes the Board to make safety recommendations, conduct
safety studies, and oversee safety activities of other
Government agencies involved in transportation. The Board also
reviews appeals of adverse actions by the Department of
Transportation with respect to airmen and seamen certificates
and licenses.
The Board has no regulatory authority over the
transportation industry. Thus, its effectiveness depends on its
reputation for impartial and accurate accident reports,
realistic and feasible safety recommendations, and on public
confidence in its commitment to improving transportation
safety.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The bill includes $70,000,000 for the National
Transportation Safety Board. The Committee recommendation is
$7,058,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2001 and
$5,520,000 more than the budget request. The Committee notes
that the National Transportation Safety Board Amendments Act of
2000 (Public Law 106-424) requires the Board, among other
things, to provide the payment of true overtime for
investigators and to implement the financial management control
initiatives that were recommended by a private sector audit
firm last year. The Committee's recommendation includes
additional funding to annualize 25 new positions; provide true
overtime payment costs; to provide 11 additional FTE's; and, to
implement financial management programs.

TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

The Committee concurs with the general provisions that
apply to the Department of Transportation and related agencies
as proposed in the budget, with some changes, deletions, and
additions. These are noted below:
Sec. 302. Includes a provision which the administration had
proposed be deleted that fiscal year 2002 pay raises for
programs be absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act
or previous appropriations Acts.
Sec. 304. Modifies a requested provision to prohibit the
use of funds for the salaries and expenses of more than 98
political and presidential appointees to the Department of
Transportation.
Sec. 306. Retains a provision regarding the availability of
funds appropriated in this Act beyond the fiscal year. The
administration proposed modifying this provision.
Sec. 307. Retains a provision that the administration had
requested be deleted regarding consulting service through
procurement contracting carried in previous appropriations
Acts.
Sec. 308. Retains a provision prohibiting the release of
personal information, including a social security number,
medical, or disability information, and photographs from a
driver's license or motor vehicle record without express
consent of the individual. The administration proposed deleting
this provision.
Sec. 309. This provision regarding the allocation of
Federal-aid Highway Program funds is continued with
modifications to reflect the passage of the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century [TEA21]. The administration
proposed modifying this provision.
Sec. 315. Includes a provision relating to modernizing
O'Hare International Airport, addressing traffic congestion
along the Northwest Corridor, and moving forward with a third
Chicago-area airport.
Sec. 319. Includes a provision rescinding certain funds
from Public Law 105-178.
Sec. 323. Includes a provision which amends section 33(a)
of Public Law 105-178 to authorize the Washington County--
Wilsonville to Beaverton commuter rail project.
Sec. 324. Includes a provision which amends section 3030(b)
of Public Law 105-178 to authorize Detroit, Michigan
Metropolitan Airport rail project.
Sec. 325. Retains a provision which prohibits the use of
funds for specific types of employee training. The
administration proposed to delete this provision.
Sec. 326. Retains a provision that the administration had
requested be deleted to prohibit the use of funds for
activities to influence Congress or a State legislature on
legislation or appropriations except through proper, official
channels.
Sec. 327. Includes a provision requiring compliance with
the Buy American Act. The administration proposed deleting this
provision.
Sec. 328. Includes a provision regarding staffing levels at
the Coast Guard Yard in Curtis Bay, Maryland.
Sec. 330. Modifies provision requested by the
administration relating to funding for the Amtrak Reform
Council.
Sec. 331. Includes a provision providing funding for
surface transportation projects.
Sec. 332. Includes a provision regarding Coast Guard Yard
in Curtis Bay, Maryland and other Coast Guard specialized
facilities.
Sec. 333. Includes a provision from the fiscal year 2000
appropriations act which prohibits the use of funds in this Act
unless the Secretary of Transportation notifies the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations not less than 3 full
business days before any discretionary grant agreement totaling
$1,000,000 or more is announced by the Department or its modal
administrations. The administration proposed deleting this
provision.
Sec. 334. Modifies a provision regarding funding of motor
carrier safety programs.
Sec. 335. Includes a provision allowing the Federal
Aviation Administration to accept funds from an airport sponsor
for specific staffing purposes.
Sec. 336. Includes a provision prohibiting use of funds to
develop new regional airport for southeast Louisiana until a
comprehensive plan is submitted to and approved by the
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration and then
submitted to and approved by the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations.
Sec. 337. Includes a provision relating to air traffic
controller retirement.
Sec. 338. Modifies a provision from a previous
appropriations Act permitting Section 402 funds to be used to
produce and place highway safety messages on paid media outlets
and designating certain Section 157 funds for paid media to
support national law enforcement safety mobilizations.
Sec. 339. Includes a provision which expands the exemption
from Federal axle weight restrictions presently applicable only
to public transit buses to all over-the-road buses and directs
that a study and report concerning applicability of maximum
axle weight limitations to over-the-road buses and public
transit vehicles be submitted to the Congress.
Sec. 340. Prohibits funds to be used to adopt guidelines or
regulations requiring airport sponsors to provide Federal
Aviation Administration ``without cost'' buildings,
maintenance, or space for FAA services. However, the
prohibition does not apply to negotiations concerning ``below
market'' rates for those items.
Sec. 341. Includes a provision which requires the Coast
Guard to submit a quarterly report to the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees on major Coast Guard acquisition
projects.
Sec. 342. Includes a provision which the administration had
requested be deleted that reduces the funds provided for the
Transportation Administrative Service Center.
Sec. 343. Includes a provision regarding safety standards
for Mexico-domiciled truck operating in the United States
beyond United States municipalities and commercial zones on the
United States-Mexico border.
Sec. 344. Includes a provision relating to the calculation
of the local share to match Federal funds provided for a
transit project in Clark County, Nevada.
Sec. 345. Includes a provision amending Public Law 105-178
relating to a project in Alaska.
Sec. 346. Includes a provision amending Public Law 105-178
relating to projects in Washington.
Sec. 347. Includes a provision regarding historic covered
bridges.
Sec. 348. Includes a provision clarifying the use of funds
allocated in previous appropriations Act for transit capital
projects in New Mexico.

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, the Committee
ordered reported, en bloc, S. 1171, an original fiscal year
2002 Energy and Water Development appropriations bill, S. 1172,
an original fiscal year 2002 Legislative Branch appropriations
bill, and S. 1178, an original fiscal year 2002 Transportation
and related agencies appropriations bill, each subject to
amendment and each subject to its budget allocations, by a
recorded vote of 29-0, a quorum being present. The vote was as
follows:
Yeas Nays
Chairman Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Hollings
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Reid
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Johnson
Mrs. Landrieu
Mr. Reed
Mr. Stevens
Mr. Cochran
Mr. Specter
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Burns
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Campbell
Mr. Craig
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. DeWine

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE

Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports
on a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute
or part of any statute include ``(a) the text of the statute or
part thereof which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a
comparative print of that part of the bill or joint resolution
making the amendment and of the statute or part thereof
proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-through type and
italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical
devices the omissions and insertions which would be made by the
bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form recommended by
the committee.''
In compliance with this rule, the following changes in
existing law proposed to be made by the bill are shown as
follows: existing law to be omitted is enclosed in black
brackets; new matter is printed in italic; and existing law in
which no change is proposed is shown in roman.

TITLE 5--GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES

* * * * * * *

PART III--EMPLOYEES

* * * * * * *

Subpart G--Insurance and Annuities

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 83--RETIREMENT

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER III--CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT

* * * * * * *

Sec. 8335. Mandatory separation

(a) An air traffic controller shall be separated from the
service on the last day of the month in which he becomes 56
years of age if the controller qualifies for an immediate
annuity at that time. If not eligible for an immediate annuity
upon reaching age 56, the controller may work until the last
day of the month in which the controller becomes eligible for a
retirement annuity unless the Secretary determines that such
action would compromise safety. The Secretary, under such
regulations as he may prescribe, may exempt a controller having
exceptional skills and experience as a controller from the
automatic separation provisions of this subsection until that
controller becomes 61 years of age. The Secretary shall notify
the controller in writing of the date of separation at least 60
days before that date. Action to separate the controller is not
effective, without the consent of the controller, until the
last day of the month in which the 60-day notice expires.

* * * * * * *

TITLE 14--COAST GUARD

* * * * * * *

PART I--REGULAR COAST GUARD

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 17--ADMINISTRATION

* * * * * * *

Sec. 648. Accounting for industrial work

(a) The Secretary may prescribe regulations governing
accounting for industrial work, including charges for overhead
for civilian labor and for maintenance of industrial plant and
equipment, performed at the Coast Guard Yard and other Coast
Guard specialized facilities [or such similar Coast Guard
industrial establishments] as he may designate. Any orders
placed for such industrial work shall be covered by a transfer
or advance of funds to cover the estimated cost thereof, and
shall be credited to such accounts as may be necessary and
established by the Secretary to carry out the provisions of
this section. Accounts so established shall be available for
materials, supplies, or equipment, and civilian labor,
including overhead and maintenance, required in performing the
work ordered. Upon completion of an order an adjustment will be
made to make the amount transferred or advanced equal to the
actual cost as computed in accordance with the accounting
regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
(b) For providing support to the Department of Defense, the
Coast Guard Yard and other Coast Guard specialized facilities
designated by the Commandant shall qualify as components of the
Department of Defense for competition and workload assignment
purposes. In addition, for purposes of entering into joint
public-private partnerships and other cooperative arrangements
for the performance of work, the Coast Guard Yard and other
Coast Guard specialized facilities may enter into agreements or
other arrangements, receive and retain funds from and pay funds
to such public and private entities, and may accept
contributions of funds, materials, services, and the use of
facilities from such entities. Amounts received under this
subsection may be credited to appropriate Coast Guard accounts
for fiscal year 2002 and for each fiscal year thereafter.

* * * * * * *

INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT OF 1991

* * * * * * *

SEC. 1023. GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT RESTRICTION.

* * * * * * *

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(h) Over-the-Road Buses and Public Transit Vehicles.--
(1) Temporary exemption.--The second sentence of
section 127 of title 23, United States Code, relating
to axle weight limitations for vehicles using the
Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense
Highways, shall not apply, for the period beginning on
October 6, 1992, and ending on October 1, 2003, [to any
vehicle which] to--
(A) any over-the-road bus; or
(B) any vehicle that
is regularly and exclusively used as an intrastate
public agency transit passenger bus.
[(2) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study on
the maximum axle weight limitations on the Dwight D.
Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways
established under section 127 of title 23, United
States Code, or under State laws, as they apply to
public transit vehicles. The study shall determine
whether or not public transit vehicles should be
exempted from the requirements of section 127 or State
laws or if such laws should be modified with regard to
public transit vehicles. In making such determination,
the Secretary shall consider current transit vehicle
design standards, the implications of the Americans
with Disabilities Act and Clean Air Act requirements on
such design standards, and the potential impact of
revised design standards on transit ridership capacity,
operating and replacement costs, air quality concerns,
and highway wear and tear.
[(3) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
submit to the Congress a report on the result of the
study conducted under paragraph (2), together with
recommendations.]
(2) Study and report concerning applicability of
maximum axle weight limitations to over-the-road buses
and public transit vehicles.--
(A) Study and report.--Not later than July
31, 2002, the Secretary shall conduct a study
of, and submit to Congress a report on, the
maximum axle weight limitations applicable to
vehicles using the Dwight D. Eisenhower
National System of Interstate and Defense
Highways established under section 127 of title
23, United States Code, or under State law, as
the limitations apply to over-the-road buses
and public transit vehicles.
(B) Determination of applicability of
vehicle weight limitations.--
(i) In general.--The report shall
include--
(I) a determination
concerning how the requirements
of section 127 of that title
should be applied to over-the-
road buses and public transit
vehicles; and
(II) short-term and long-
term recommendations concerning
the applicability of those
requirements.
(ii) Considerations.--In making the
determination described in clause
(i)(I), the Secretary shall consider--
(I) vehicle design
standards;
(II) statutory and
regulatory requirements,
including--
(aa) the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et
seq.);
(bb) the Americans
with Disabilities Act
of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
12101 et seq.); and
(cc) motor vehicle
safety standards
prescribed under
chapter 301 of title
49, United States Code;
and
(III)(aa) the availability
of lightweight materials
suitable for use in the
manufacture of over-the-road
buses;
(bb) the cost of those
lightweight materials relative
to the cost of heavier
materials in use as of the date
of the determination; and
(cc) any safety or design
considerations relating to the
use of those materials.
(C) Analysis of means of encouraging
development and manufacture of lightweight
buses.--The report shall include an analysis
of, and recommendations concerning, means to be
considered to encourage the development and
manufacture of lightweight buses, including an
analysis of--
(i) potential procurement
incentives for public transit
authorities to encourage the purchase
of lightweight public transit vehicles
using grants from the Federal Transit
Administration; and
(ii) potential tax incentives for
manufacturers and private operators to
encourage the purchase of lightweight
over-the-road buses.
(D) Analysis of consideration in
rulemakings of additional vehicle weight.--The
report shall include an analysis of, and
recommendations concerning, whether Congress
should require that each rulemaking by an
agency of the Federal Government that affects
the design or manufacture of motor vehicles
consider--
(i) the weight that would be added
to the vehicle by implementation of the
proposed rule;
(ii) the effect that the added
weight would have on pavement wear; and
(iii) the resulting cost to the
Federal Government and State and local
governments.
(E) Cost-benefit analysis.--The report
shall include an analysis relating to the axle
weight of over-the-road buses that compares--
(i) the costs of the pavement wear
caused by over-the-road buses; with
(ii) the benefits of the over-the-
road bus industry to the environment,
the economy, and the transportation
system of the United States.
(3) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(A) Over-the-road bus.--The term ``over-
the-road bus'' has the meaning given the term
in section 301 of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12181).
(B) Public transit vehicle.--The term
``public transit vehicle'' means a vehicle
described in paragraph (1)(B).

* * * * * * *

TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY, PUBLIC LAW 105-178

SEC. 1602. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

* * * * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Dollars
No. State Project description in
millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
642. Washington [Construct passenger 3.75
ferry facility to
serve Southworth,
Seattle] Passenger
only ferry to serve
Kitsap County-
Seattle.............
* * * * * *
*
Alaska 1348. [Extend West Douglas 2.475
Road] Second Douglas
Island Crossing.....
* * * * * *
*
Washington3. [Southworth Seattle 0.962
Ferry] Passenger
only ferry to serve
Kitsap County-
Seattle.............
* * * * * *
*
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
SEC. 3030. PROJECTS FOR NEW FIXED GUIDEWAY SYSTEMS AND EXTENSIONS TO
EXISTING SYSTEMS.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

Washington County--Wilsonville to Beaverton
commuter rail.
(b) * * *
Detroit, Michigan Metropolitan Airport rail
project.

* * * * * * *

OMNIBUS CONSOLIDATED AND EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
1999, PUBLIC LAW 105-277

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

* * * * * * *

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

* * * * * * *

Capital Investment Grants

* * * * * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. State Project Conference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
143 New Mexico [Northern New Mexico park and ride facilities] 2,000,000
Northern New Mexico park and ride facilities and
State of New Mexico, Buses and Bus-Related
Facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2000, PUBLIC LAW 106-69

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

* * * * * * *

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

* * * * * * *

Capital Investment Grants

* * * * * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. State Project Conference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
167 New Mexico [Northern New Mexico Transit Express/Park and 2,750,000
Ride buses] Northern New Mexico park and ride
facilities and State of New Mexico, Buses and
Bus-Related Facilities..........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL
PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
AMENDED
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget authority Outlays
---------------------------------------------------
Committee Amount of Committee Amount of
allocation bill allocation bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations
to its subcommittees of amounts in the First Concurrent
Resolution 2002: Subcommittee on Transportation and Related
Agencies:
General purpose, defense................................ 695 695 NA NA
General purpose non-defense............................. 14,884 14.880 NA NA
General purpose, total.................................. 15,579 15.575 19,104 \1\ 19,101
Highway category........................................ NA NA 28,489 28,489
Mass transit............................................ NA NA 5,275 5,275
Mandatory............................................... -915 ........... 801 801
Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation:
2002.................................................... ........... ........... ........... \2\ 20,981
2003.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 19,371
2004.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 8,467
2005.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 3,859
2006 and future year.................................... ........... ........... ........... 4,076
Financial assistance to State and local governments for 2002 NA 1.506 NA 1,080
in bill....................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\ Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

NA: Not applicable.

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2002
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Committee recommendation
compared with (+ or -)
Item 2001 Budget estimate Committee -----------------------------------
appropriation recommendation 2001
appropriation Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Salaries and expenses......................................... 63,245 69,500 67,349 +4,104 -2,151
Immediate Office of the Secretary......................... (1,827) (1,989) (1,929) (+102) (-60)
Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary.................. (587) (638) (619) (+32) (-19)
Office of the General Counsel............................. (9,972) (13,355) (14,075) (+4,103) (+720)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy.............. (3,011) (3,153) (3,058) (+47) (-95)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and (7,289) (7,650) (7,421) (+132) (-229)
International Affairs....................................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs. (7,362) (7,728) (7,728) (+366) ................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs (2,150) (2,282) (2,214) (+64) (-68)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration...... (19,020) (20,262) (18,236) (-784) (-2,026)
Office of Public Affairs.................................. (1,674) (1,776) (1,723) (+49) (-53)
Executive Secretariat..................................... (1,181) (1,241) (1,204) (+23) (-37)
Board of Contract Appeals................................. (496) (523) (507) (+11) (-16)
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization.... (1,192) (1,251) (1,213) (+21) (-38)
Office of Intelligence and Security....................... (1,262) (1,321) (1,281) (+19) (-40)
Office of the Chief Information Officer................... (6,222) (6,331) (6,141) (-81) (-190)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ (63,245) (69,500) (67,349) (+4,104) (-2,151)

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................ -139 ................ ................ +139 ................

Office of Civil Rights........................................ 8,140 8,500 8,500 +360 ................
Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................ -18 ................ ................ +18 ................
Transportation planning, research, and development............ 11,000 5,193 15,592 +4,592 +10,399
Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................ -24 ................ ................ +24 ................
Transportation Administrative Service Center.................. (126,887) (125,323) (125,323) (-1,564) ................
Minority business resource center program..................... 1,900 900 900 -1,000 ................
Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................ -4 ................ ................ +4 ................
(Limitation on guaranteed loans).......................... (13,775) (18,367) (18,367) (+4,592) ................
Minority business outreach.................................... 3,000 3,000 3,000 ................ ................
Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................ -7 ................ ................ +7 ................
Payments to air carriers (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)...... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
=========================================================================================
Total, Office of the Secretary.......................... 87,285 87,093 95,341 +8,056 +8,248

ATB rescissions..................................... -192 ................ ................ +192 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net total......................................... 87,093 87,093 95,341 +8,248 +8,248

Coast Guard

Operating expenses............................................ 2,851,000 3,042,588 2,732,588 -118,412 -310,000
Defense function.......................................... 341,000 340,250 695,000 +354,000 +354,750
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ 3,192,000 3,382,838 3,427,588 +235,588 +44,750

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................ -6,967 ................ ................ +6,967 ................

Acquisition, construction, and improvements:
Vessels................................................... 156,450 79,390 79,640 -76,810 +250
Aircraft.................................................. 37,650 500 10,500 -27,150 +10,000
Other equipment........................................... 60,113 95,471 99,921 +39,808 +4,450
Shore facilities and aids to navigation facilities........ 63,336 79,262 88,862 +25,526 +9,600
Personnel and related support............................. 55,151 66,700 65,200 +10,049 -1,500
Integrated Deepwater Systems.............................. 42,300 338,000 325,200 +282,900 -12,800
Rescission................................................ ................ ................ -8,700 -8,700 -8,700
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, A C & I (excl rescissions).................... 415,000 659,323 669,323 +254,323 +10,000

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................ -869 ................ ................ +869 ................
Environmental compliance and restoration...................... 16,700 16,927 16,927 +227 ................
Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................ -37 ................ ................ +37 ................
Alteration of bridges......................................... 15,500 15,466 15,466 -34 ................
Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................ -35 ................ ................ +35 ................
Retired pay................................................... 778,000 876,346 876,346 +98,346 ................
Reserve training.............................................. 80,375 83,194 83,194 +2,819 ................
Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................ -176 ................ ................ +176 ................
Research, development, test, and evaluation................... 21,320 21,722 21,722 +402 ................
Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................ -40 ................ ................ +40 ................
Trust fund share of expenses (ATB rescission)................. -108 ................ ................ +108 ................
=========================================================================================
Total, Coast Guard...................................... 4,518,895 5,055,816 5,110,566 +591,671 +54,750

Rescissions......................................... -8,232 ................ -8,700 -468 -8,700
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net total......................................... 4,510,663 5,055,816 5,101,866 +591,203 +46,050

Federal Aviation Administration

Operations.................................................... 6,544,235 6,886,000 6,916,000 +371,765 +30,000
Air traffic services...................................... (5,200,274) (5,447,421) (5,447,421) (+247,147) ................
Aviation regulation and certification..................... (694,979) (744,744) (774,744) (+79,765) (+30,000)
Civil aviation security................................... (139,301) (150,154) (150,154) (+10,853) ................
Research and acquisition.................................. (189,988) (196,674) (196,674) (+6,686) ................
Commercial space transportation........................... (12,000) (14,706) (14,706) (+2,706) ................
Financial services........................................ (48,444) (50,684) (50,684) (+2,240) ................
Human resources........................................... (54,864) (74,516) (74,516) (+19,652) ................
Regional coordination..................................... (99,347) (90,893) (90,893) (-8,454) ................
Staff offices............................................. (105,038) (116,208) (116,208) (+11,170) ................
Undistributed............................................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ (6,544,235) (6,886,000) (6,916,000) (+371,765) (+30,000)

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................ -14,397 ................ ................ +14,397 ................
Facilities and equipment (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)...... 2,656,765 2,914,000 2,914,000 +257,235 ................
Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................ -5,845 ................ ................ +5,845 ................
Research, engineering, and development (Airport and Airway 187,000 187,781 195,808 +8,808 +8,027
Trust Fund)..................................................
Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................ -411 ................ ................ +411 ................
Grants-in-aid for airports (Airport and Airway Trust Fund):
(Liquidation of contract authorization)................... (3,200,000) (1,800,000) (1,800,000) (-1,400,000) ................
(Limitation on obligations)............................... (3,200,000) (3,300,000) (3,300,000) (+100,000) ................
Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission............ (-7,040) ................ ................ (+7,040) ................
Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission............ -4 ................ ................ +4 ................
Rescission of contract authorization...................... -579,000 -331,000 -301,720 +277,280 +29,280
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net subtotal............................................ (2,613,956) (2,969,000) (2,998,280) (+384,324) (+29,280)

Small Community air service development pilot program......... ................ ................ 20,000 +20,000 +20,000
=========================================================================================
Total, Federal Aviation Administration.................. 9,388,000 9,987,781 10,045,808 +657,808 +58,027
(Limitations on obligations)........................ (3,200,000) (3,300,000) (3,300,000) (+100,000) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources......................... (12,588,000) (13,287,781) (13,345,808) (+757,808) (+58,027)

ATB rescissions..................................... (-7,040) ................ ................ (+7,040) ................

ATB rescissions..................................... -20,657 ................ ................ +20,657 ................

Rescission.......................................... -579,000 -331,000 -301,720 +277,280 +29,280
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net total......................................... (11,981,303) (12,956,781) (13,044,088) (+1,062,785) (+87,307)

Federal Highway Administration

Limitation on administrative expenses......................... (295,119) (317,693) (316,521) (+21,402) (-1,172)
Limitation on transportation research......................... ................ ................ (445,000) (+445,000) (+445,000)
Federal-aid highways (Highway Trust Fund):
(Limitation on obligations)............................... (26,603,806) (27,042,994) (27,400,000) (+796,194) (+357,006)
Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission............ (-58,528) ................ ................ (+58,528) ................
Revenue aligned budget authority (RABA)................... (3,058,000) (4,341,700) (4,326,700) (+1,268,700) (-15,000)
Innovative transportation solutions program (RABA).... ................ (45,000) (45,000) (+45,000) ................
Alternative transportation grant prog (RABA).......... ................ (100,000) (100,000) (+100,000) ................
Border infrastructure construction prog (RABA)........ ................ (56,300) (71,300) (+71,300) (+15,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, RABA...................................... (3,058,000) (4,543,000) (4,543,000) (+1,485,000) ................

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission............ (-6,728) ................ ................ (+6,728) ................
Authorized transfer to FMCSA.............................. ................ (-22,837) (-23,897) (-23,897) (-1,060)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, limitation on obligations..................... (29,661,806) (31,563,157) (31,919,103) (+2,257,297) (+355,946)

(Exempt obligations)...................................... (1,069,000) (955,000) (955,000) (-114,000) ................
(Liquidation of contract authorization)................... (28,000,000) (30,000,000) (30,000,000) (+2,000,000) ................

Emergency Relief Program (Highway Trust Fund) (contingent 720,000 ................ ................ -720,000 ................
emergency appropriation).....................................
Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................ -1,584 ................ ................ +1,584 ................
Appalachian development highway system........................ 279,963 ................ 350,000 +70,037 +350,000
Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................ -649 ................ ................ +649 ................
State infrastructure banks (rescission)....................... ................ ................ -5,750 -5,750 -5,750
Value pricing project (rescission)............................ ................ ................ -9,231 -9,231 -9,231
=========================================================================================
Total, Federal Highway Administration................... 279,963 ................ 350,000 +70,037 +350,000

Contingent emergency................................ 720,000 ................ ................ -720,000 ................

(Limitations on obligations)........................ (29,661,806) (31,563,157) (31,919,103) (+2,257,297) (+355,946)
(Exempt obligations)................................ (1,069,000) (955,000) (955,000) (-114,000) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources......................... (31,730,769) (32,518,157) (33,224,103) (+1,493,334) (+705,946)

ATB rescissions..................................... (-65,256) ................ ................ (+65,256) ................

ATB rescissions..................................... -2,233 ................ -9,231 -6,998 -9,231

Rescission.......................................... ................ ................ -5,750 -5,750 -5,750
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net total......................................... (31,663,280) (32,518,157) (33,209,122) (+1,545,842) (+690,965)

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Motor carrier safety (limitation on obligations administrative (92,194) (139,007) (105,000) (+12,806) (-34,007)
expenses)....................................................
Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................ (-202) ................ ................ (+202) ................
Rescission................................................ ................ ................ -6,665 -6,665 -6,665
National motor carrier safety program (Highway Trust Fund):
(Liquidation of contract authorization)................... (177,000) (204,837) (204,837) (+27,837) ................
(Limitation on obligations)............................... (177,000) (182,000) (183,059) (+6,059) (+1,059)
Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission............ (-389) ................ ................ (+389) ................
Rescission of contract authority...................... ................ ................ -2,333 -2,333 -2,333
Authorized transfer from FHWA:
Border-State grants................................... ................ (18,000) (18,000) (+18,000) ................
State commercial driver's license..................... ................ (4,837) (4,837) (+4,837) ................
Motor carrier safety assistance grants................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, RABA...................................... ................ (22,837) (22,837) (+22,837) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, limitation on obligations................. (177,000) (204,837) (205,896) (+28,896) (+1,059)
=========================================================================================
Total, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Admin........... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................

(Limitations on obligations).................... (269,194) (343,844) (310,896) (+41,702) (-32,948)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources..................... (269,194) (343,844) (310,896) (+41,702) (-32,948)
ATB rescissions..................................... (-591) ................ ................ (+591) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net total......................................... (268,603) (343,844) (310,896) (+42,293) (-32,948)

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Operations and research....................................... 116,876 122,000 132,000 +15,124 +10,000
Operations and research (Highway trust fund):
(Liquidation of contract authorization)................... (72,000) (72,000) (72,000) ................ ................
(Limitation on obligations)............................... (72,000) (72,000) (72,000) ................ ................
Rescission of contract authority.......................... ................ ................ -1,516 -1,516 -1,516
National Driver Register (Highway trust fund)................. 2,000 2,000 2,000 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operations and research....................... (190,876) (196,000) (204,484) (+13,608) (+8,484)

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................ -261 ................ ................ +261 ................
Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................ (-158) ................ ................ (+158) ................
Highway traffic safety grants (Highway Trust Fund):
(Liquidation of contract authorization)................... (213,000) (223,000) (223,000) (+10,000) ................
(Limitation on obligations):
Highway safety programs (Sec. 402).................... (155,000) (160,000) (160,000) (+5,000) ................
Occupant protection incentive grants (Sec. 405)....... (13,000) (15,000) (15,000) (+2,000) ................
Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures grants (Sec. (36,000) (38,000) (38,000) (+2,000) ................
410).................................................
State highway safety data grants (Sec. 411)........... (9,000) (10,000) (10,000) (+1,000) ................
Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission........ (-469) ................ ................ (+469) ................
Rescission of contract authority.................. ................ ................ -469 -469 -469
=========================================================================================
Total, National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.... 118,876 124,000 134,000 +15,124 +10,000

(Limitations on obligations)................ (285,000) (295,000) (295,000) (+10,000) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources................. (403,876) (419,000) (429,000) (+25,124) (+10,000)

ATB rescissions..................................... (-627) ................ ................ (+627) ................

ATB rescissions..................................... -261 ................ ................ +261 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net total......................................... (402,988) (419,000) (429,000) (+26,012) (+10,000)

Federal Railroad Administration

Safety and operations......................................... 101,717 111,357 111,357 +9,640 ................
Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................ -224 ................ ................ +224 ................
Offsetting collections.................................... ................ -41,000 ................ ................ +41,000
Railroad research and development............................. 25,325 28,325 30,325 +5,000 +2,000
Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................ -56 ................ ................ +56 ................
Offsetting collections.................................... ................ -14,000 ................ ................ +14,000
Rhode Island Rail Development................................. 17,000 ................ ................ -17,000 ................
Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................ -37 ................ ................ +37 ................
Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment project (advance 20,000 20,000 20,000 ................ ................
appropriations, fiscal year 2001, fiscal year 2002, fiscal
year 2003) \1\...............................................
Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................ -44 ................ ................ +44 ................
Rescission................................................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Next generation high-speed rail............................... 25,100 25,100 40,000 +14,900 +14,900
Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................ -55 ................ ................ +55 ................
Alaska Railroad rehabilitation................................ 20,000 ................ 20,000 ................ +20,000
Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................ -44 ................ ................ +44 ................
West Virginia Rail development................................ 15,000 ................ ................ -15,000 ................
Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................ -33 ................ ................ +33 ................
National Rail Development and Rehabilitation program.......... ................ ................ 12,000 +12,000 +12,000

Capital grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation. 521,476 521,476 521,476 ................ ................
Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................ -1,147 ................ ................ +1,147 ................
=========================================================================================
Total, Federal Railroad Administration.................. 743,978 651,258 755,158 +11,180 +103,900

ATB rescissions..................................... -1,640 ................ ................ +1,640 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net total......................................... 742,338 651,258 755,158 +12,820 +103,900

Federal Transit Administration

Administrative expenses....................................... 12,800 13,400 13,400 +600 ................
Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................ -28 ................ ................ +28 ................
Administrative expenses (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit (51,200) (53,600) (53,600) (+2,400) ................
Account) (limitation on obligations).........................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Administrative expenses....................... (63,972) (67,000) (67,000) (+3,028) ................

Formula grants................................................ 669,000 718,400 718,400 +49,400 ................
Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................ -1,360 ................ ................ +1,360 ................
Formula grants (Highway Trust Fund)(limitation on obligations) (2,676,000) (2,873,600) (2,873,600) (+197,600) ................
Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................ (-5,887) ................ ................ (+5,887) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Formula grants................................ (3,343,640) (3,592,000) (3,592,000) (+248,360) ................

University transportation research............................ 1,200 1,200 1,200 ................ ................
University transportation research (Highway Trust Fund, Mass (4,800) (4,800) (4,800) ................ ................
Transit Acct) (limitation on obligations)....................
Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................ (-3) ................ ................ (+3) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, University transportation research............ (6,000) (6,000) (6,000) ................ ................

Transit planning and research................................. 22,200 23,000 23,000 +800 ................
Transit planning and research (Highway Trust Fund, Mass (87,800) (93,000) (93,000) (+5,200) ................
Transit Account) (limitation on obligations).................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Transit planning and research................. (110,000) (116,000) (116,000) (+6,000) ................

Rural transportation assistance........................... (5,250) (5,250) (5,250) ................ ................
National Transit Institute................................ (4,000) (4,000) (4,000) ................ ................
Transit cooperative research.............................. (8,250) (8,250) (8,250) ................ ................
Metropolitan planning..................................... (52,114) (55,422) (55,422) (+3,308) ................
State planning............................................ (10,886) (11,578) (11,578) (+692) ................
National planning and research............................ (29,500) (31,500) (31,500) (+2,000) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ (110,000) (116,000) (116,000) (+6,000) ................

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................ -49 ................ ................ +49 ................
Trust fund share of expenses (Highway Trust Fund) (liquidation (5,016,600) (5,397,800) (5,397,800) (+381,200) ................
of contract authorization)...................................
Capital investment grants..................................... 529,200 568,200 568,200 +39,000 ................
Capital investment grants (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit (2,116,800) (2,272,800) (2,272,800) (+156,000) ................
Account) (limitation on obligations).........................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Capital investment grants..................... (2,646,000) (2,841,000) (2,841,000) (+195,000) ................

Fixed guideway modernization.............................. (1,058,400) (1,136,400) (1,136,400) (+78,000) ................
Buses and bus-related facilities.......................... (529,200) (568,200) (568,200) (+39,000) ................
New starts................................................ (1,058,400) (1,136,400) (1,136,400) (+78,000) ................
New starts (general funds)................................ ................ ................ 100,000 +100,000 +100,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ (2,646,000) (2,841,000) (2,841,000) (+195,000) ................

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................ -1,274 ................ ................ +1,274 ................
Discretionary grants (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit (350,000) ................ ................ (-350,000) ................
Account) (liquidation of contract authorization).............
Job access and reverse commute grants......................... 20,000 25,000 25,000 +5,000 ................
Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................ -44 ................ ................ +44 ................
(Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account) (limitation on (80,000) (100,000) (100,000) (+20,000) ................
obligations).............................................
Trust fund share of expenses (limitation on obligations) (ATB (-8,492) ................ ................ (+8,492) ................
rescission)..................................................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Job access and reverse commute grants......... (99,956) (125,000) (125,000) (+25,044) ................
=========================================================================================
Total, Federal Transit Administration................... 1,254,400 1,349,200 1,449,200 +194,800 +100,000

(Limitations on obligations)........................ (5,016,600) (5,397,800) (5,397,800) (+381,200) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources......................... (6,271,000) (6,747,000) (6,847,000) (+576,000) (+100,000)

ATB rescissions..................................... (-14,382) ................ ................ (+14,382) ................

ATB rescissions..................................... -2,755 ................ ................ +2,755 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net total......................................... (6,253,863) (6,747,000) (6,847,000) (+593,137) (+100,000)

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

Operations and maintenance (Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund).... 13,004 13,345 13,345 +341 ................
Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................ -29 ................ ................ +29 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net total............................................... 12,975 13,345 13,345 +370 ................

Research and Special Programs Administration

Research and special programs:
Hazardous materials safety................................ 18,750 21,217 21,217 +2,467 ................
Emergency transportation.................................. 1,831 1,897 1,897 +66 ................
Research and technology................................... 4,816 4,760 4,760 -56 ................
Program and administrative support........................ 10,976 14,059 14,059 +3,083 ................
Adjustment................................................ ................ 60 60 +60 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, research and special programs................. 36,373 41,993 41,993 +5,620 ................

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................ -79 ................ ................ +79 ................
Offsetting collections.................................... ................ -12,000 ................ ................ +12,000
Pipeline safety:
Pipeline Safety Fund...................................... 36,556 46,286 47,278 +10,722 +992
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund............................ 7,488 7,472 11,472 +3,984 +4,000
Pipeline safety reserve................................... (3,000) ................ ................ (-3,000) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Pipeline safety program (incl reserve)........ (47,044) (53,758) (58,750) (+11,706) (+4,992)

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................ -19 ................ ................ +19 ................
Emergency preparedness grants:
Emergency preparedness fund............................... 200 200 200 ................ ................
Limitation on emergency preparedness fund................. (14,300) (14,300) (14,300) ................ ................
=========================================================================================
Total, Research and Special Programs Admin.............. 80,617 83,951 100,943 +20,326 +16,992

ATB rescissions..................................... -98 ................ ................ +98 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net total......................................... 80,519 83,951 100,943 +20,424 +16,992

Office of Inspector General

Salaries and expenses......................................... 48,450 50,614 50,614 +2,164 ................
Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................ -106 ................ ................ +106 ................
(By transfer from FTA).................................... (1,000) (2,000) (2,000) (+1,000) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net total............................................... (49,344) (52,614) (52,614) (+3,270) ................

Surface Transportation Board

Salaries and expenses......................................... 17,954 18,457 18,457 +503 ................
Offsetting collections.................................... -900 -950 -950 -50 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net total............................................... 17,054 17,507 17,507 +453 ................

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................ -37 ................ ................ +37 ................

Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Office of airline information (Airport and Airway Trust Fund). ................ 3,760 3,760 +3,760 ................

General Provisions

Amtrak Reform Council (Sec. 326).............................. 750 785 420 -330 -365
Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................ -2 ................ ................ +2 ................
Muscle Shoals, Tuscumbia, and Sheffield (Sec. 375)............ 5,000 ................ ................ -5,000 ................
Valley trains and tours (Sec. 376)............................ 1,000 ................ ................ -1,000 ................
Miscellaneous highways (Sec. 378)............................. 1,145,000 ................ ................ -1,145,000 ................
Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................ -2,519 ................ ................ +2,519 ................
Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge (Sec. 379)..................... 600,000 ................ ................ -600,000 ................
Surface Transportation projects............................... ................ ................ 20,000 +20,000 +20,000
Miscellaneous appropriations (Public Law 106-554):
Huntsville International Airport (sec. 1104).............. 2,500 ................ ................ -2,500 ................
Southeast Light Rail Extension Project (sec. 1105)........ 1,000 ................ ................ -1,000 ................
Newark-Elizabeth rail link project (sec. 1107)............ 3,000 ................ ................ -3,000 ................
Commercial remote sensing products and spatial information 4,000 ................ ................ -4,000 ................
technologies (sec. 1109).................................
Rural farm-to-market roads (sec. 1121).................... 2,400 ................ ................ -2,400 ................
Buses and bus facilities, A&M University (sec. 1123)...... 500 ................ ................ -500 ................
Highway Trust Fund, various projects (sec. 1128).......... 8,700 ................ ................ -8,700 ................
Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission.................... -1,333 ................ ................ +1,333 ................
West Douglas Road Extension................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, General provisions............................... 1,769,996 785 20,420 -1,749,576 +19,635
=========================================================================================
Net total, title I, Department of Transportation........ 18,426,918 17,094,110 17,810,278 -616,640 +716,168

Appropriations.................................. (18,326,012) (17,425,110) (18,146,662) (-179,350) (+721,552)

Rescissions..................................... (-619,094) (-331,000) (-332,066) (+287,028) (-1,066)

Rescission of contract authority................ ................ ................ (-4,318) (-4,318) (-4,318)

Contingent emergency............................ (720,000) ................ ................ (-720,000) ................

(By transfer)....................................... (1,000) (2,000) (2,000) (+1,000) ................

(Limitations on obligations)........................ (38,432,600) (40,899,801) (41,222,799) (+2,790,199) (+322,998)

(Rescissions of limitations on obligations)......... (-87,896) ................ ................ (+87,896) ................

(Exempt obligations)................................ (1,069,000) (955,000) (955,000) (-114,000) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net total budgetary resources..................... (57,840,622) (58,948,911) (59,988,077) (+2,147,455) (+1,039,166)
=========================================================================================
TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board

Salaries and expenses......................................... 4,795 5,015 5,015 +220 ................
Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................ -11 ................ ................ +11 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net total............................................... 4,784 5,015 5,015 +231 ................

National Transportation Safety Board

Salaries and expenses......................................... 62,942 64,480 70,000 +7,058 +5,520
Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission................ -139 ................ ................ +139 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net total............................................... 62,803 64,480 70,000 +7,197 +5,520
=========================================================================================
Total, title II, Related Agencies....................... 67,587 69,495 75,015 +7,428 +5,520
=========================================================================================
Grand total............................................. 18,494,505 17,163,605 17,885,293 -609,212 +721,688

Appropriations.................................. (18,393,749) (17,494,605) (18,221,677) (-172,072) (+727,072)

Rescissions..................................... (-619,244) (-331,000) (-332,066) (+287,178) (-1,066)

Rescission of contract authority................ ................ ................ (-4,318) (-4,318) (-4,318)

Contingent emergency............................ (720,000) ................ ................ (-720,000) ................

(By transfer)....................................... (1,000) (2,000) (2,000) (+1,000) ................

(Limitation on obligations)......................... (38,432,600) (40,899,801) (41,222,799) (+2,790,199) (+322,998)

(Rescissions of limitations on obligations)......... (-87,896) ................ ................ (+87,896) ................

(Exempt obligations)................................ (1,069,000) (955,000) (955,000) (-114,000) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net total budgetary resources..................... (57,908,209) (59,018,406) (60,063,092) (+2,154,883) (+1,044,686)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funding provided in Public Law 106-113.