 |
[From the Senate Reports Online via GPO Access.
Check for accuracy before quoting or citing.]
Calendar No. 163
104th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 104-126
_______________________________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL,
1996
_______
August 4 (legislative day, July 10), 1995.--Ordered to be printed
_______________________________________________________________________
Mr. Hatfield, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 2002]
The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the
bill (H.R. 2002) making appropriations for the Department of
Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1996, and for other purposes, reports the same to
the Senate with amendments and recommends that the bill as
amended do pass.
Amounts of new budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 1996
Amount of bill passed by the House...................... $12,810,725,806
Amount of bill as reported to Senate.................... 12,613,811,567
Amount of budget estimates, 1996........................ 35,468,964,831
Fiscal year 1995 enacted................................ 14,214,401,000
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............................................ 5
Office of Civil Rights........................................... 5
Transportation planning, research, and development............... 6
Office of Commercial Space Transportation........................ 6
Working capital fund............................................. 6
Payments to air carriers......................................... 7
Rental payments.................................................. 10
Headquarters facilities.......................................... 12
Minority Business Resource Center Program........................ 12
Minority business outreach....................................... 12
ICC sunset....................................................... 13
State infrastructure banks....................................... 13
Unified Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program......... 14
U.S. Coast Guard
Operating expenses............................................... 23
Acquisition, construction, and improvements...................... 32
Environmental compliance and restoration......................... 40
Port safety development.......................................... 41
Alteration of bridges............................................ 41
Retired pay...................................................... 42
Reserve training................................................. 42
Research, development, test, and evaluation...................... 43
Boat safety...................................................... 43
Federal Aviation Administration
Operations....................................................... 44
Air Traffic Control Corporation.................................. 55
Facilities and equipment......................................... 58
Research, engineering, and development........................... 77
Grants-in-aid for airports....................................... 84
Aircraft Purchase Loan Guarantee Program......................... 89
Federal Highway Administration
Limitation on general operating expenses......................... 90
Administrative expenses.......................................... 91
Motor carrier safety operations.................................. 91
Highway-related safety grants.................................... 109
Federal-aid highways............................................. 110
Interstate substitute highways................................... 122
Right-of-way revolving fund...................................... 126
Motor carrier safety grants...................................... 127
Surface transportation projects.................................. 130
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Operations and research.......................................... 132
Highway traffic safety grants.................................... 145
Federal Railroad Administration
Office of the Administrator...................................... 150
Local Rail Freight Assistance Program............................ 151
Railroad safety.................................................. 152
Railroad research and development................................ 155
Northeast Corridor Improvement Program........................... 158
Railroad rehabilitation and improvement financing funds.......... 161
Next generation high-speed rail.................................. 162
Alaska railroad rehabilitation................................... 165
Pennsylvania Station redevelopment project....................... 165
Rhode Island rail development.................................... 166
Grants to National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)....... 166
Federal Transit Administration
Administrative expenses.......................................... 171
Formula grants................................................... 171
University transportation centers................................ 173
Transit planning and research.................................... 173
Trust fund share of transit programs............................. 175
Discretionary grants............................................. 175
Mass transit capital fund........................................ 194
Interstate transfer grants--transit.............................. 194
Washington Metro................................................. 194
Violent crime reduction programs................................. 195
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
Operations and maintenance....................................... 196
Research and Special Programs Administration
Research and special programs.................................... 198
Pipeline safety.................................................. 204
Emergency preparedness grants.................................... 209
Office of Inspector General
Salaries and expenses............................................ 209
Bureau of Transportation Statistics.............................. 210
TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board:
Salaries and expenses.......................................... 211
National Transportation Safety Board:
Salaries and expenses........................................ 212
Emergency fund............................................... 213
Interstate Commerce Commission:
Salaries and expenses........................................ 213
Payments for directed rail service........................... 214
Panama Canal Commission: Panama Canal Revolving Fund............. 214
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority................... 215
TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS
General provisions............................................... 217
Compliance with paragraph 7, rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of
the Senate..................................................... 220
Compliance with paragraph 7(c), rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules
of the Senate.................................................. 220
Compliance with paragraph 12, rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of
the Senate..................................................... 221
Budgetary impact statement....................................... 227
Total Obligational Authority Provided--General Funds and Trust Funds
In addition to the appropriation of $12,613,811,567 in new
budget authority for fiscal year 1996, 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 1996, estimated obligation
limitations total $21,320,363,536.
program, project, and activity
During fiscal year 1996, 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.
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriations, 1995 \1\................................ $57,625,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 57,459,000
House allowance......................................... 55,011,500
Committee recommendation................................ 56,500,000
\1\ Excludes amounts transferred for civil rights activities.
Section 3 of the Department of Transportation Act of
October 15, 1966 (Public Law 89-670) provides for establishment
of the Office of the Secretary of Transportation [OST]. The
Office of the Secretary is composed of the Secretary and the
Deputy Secretary immediate offices, the Office of the General
Counsel, and five assistant secretarial offices for
transportation policy, aviation and international affairs,
budget and programs, governmental affairs, and administration.
These secretarial offices have policy development and central
supervisory and coordinating functions related to the overall
planning and direction of the Department of Transportation,
including staff assistance and general management supervision
of the counterpart offices in the operating administrations of
the Department.
The Minority Business Resource Center, previously funded in
this account, is proposed to be funded under a separate account
in 1996.
The Committee recommends a total of $56,500,000 for the
salaries and expenses of the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation including $60,000 for reception and
representation expenses.
Office of Civil Rights
Appropriations, 1995.................................... ( <SUP>1 )
Budget estimate, 1996................................... $12,793,000
House allowance......................................... 6,554,000
Committee recommendation................................ 12,083,000
\1\ Transfer authority for $5,376,000 included under salaries and
expenses.
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. In
fiscal year 1995, the management of internal civil rights
activities was consolidated in OST with transfer authority
provided in the ``Salaries and expenses'' account. In fiscal
year 1996, a separate appropriation is requested which will
fund all civil rights activities in the Department including
handling of external matters, thereby completing the effort
initiated in 1995.
The Committee concurs with the administration's proposal
and has provided a total of $12,083,000 for the Office of Civil
Rights.
Transportation Planning, Research, and Development
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $8,293,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 15,710,000
House allowance......................................... 3,309,000
Committee recommendation
9,710,000
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 has fully funded the integrated personnel/
payroll system at $3,900,000 and the document management system
at $1,000,000, but has deferred funding the new automated
procurement system, -$6,000,000.
Office of Commercial Space Transportation
Operations and Research
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $6,060,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 6,541,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation
...........................
The Office of Commercial Space Transportation provides
regulatory, research and development, and studies needed to
carry out the Secretary's responsibilities as defined in
Executive Order 12465 to encourage, facilitate, and promote
commercial space launches by the United States private sector
and to license and regulate commercial launches, launch site
operations, and certain payloads under the Commercial Launch
Act (Public Law 98-575).
The Department's reorganization plans would shift this
activity to the FAA. The Committee has included funding for
this office within the Federal Aviation Administration's
``Operations'' account.
Working Capital Fund
Limitation, 1995........................................ ($93,000,000)
Limitation estimate, 1996............................... (104,364,000)
House allowance......................................... (102,231,000)
Committee recommendation
(104,364,000)
The working capital fund [WCF] provides for centralized
financing of certain common administrative services (for
example, publishing and graphics and computer services) in the
interest of economy and efficiency. The fund is reimbursed from
the appropriations of the operating agencies of the Department
at rates that recover all operating expenses in full.
A budget amendment proposes to eliminate all appropriations
language, consistent with other working capital fund accounts
in the Government. As part of its reorganization proposals, the
Department plans to create a service bureau financed by the
working capital fund to perform common services. The
administration also proposed the elimination of any
appropriation limitations on the WCF to facilitate the
responsive operation of the service bureau.
Payments to Air Carriers
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(airport and airway trust fund)
Appropriations, 1995.................................... ($33,423,000)
Budget estimate, 1996...................................................
House allowance......................................... (15,000,000)
Committee recommendation
(26,738,536)
The Secretary of Transportation administers the section 419
Subsidy Program, which was created as part of the Airline
Deregulation Act of 1978. Subsidy under this program is paid to
airlines, primarily commuter carriers, to support the provision
of essential air service to points that would not be served but
for the subsidy. The budget proposed elimination of this
program in 1996.
Many points are located in remote rural areas: 81 of 100
communities served by the Essential Air Service Program are
more than 100 highway miles and 47 are more than 200 miles from
the nearest hub airport as defined by section 419. Thirty more
communities are located in Alaska, where, in all but two cases,
year-round road access does not exist. Without air service,
such communities would be further isolated from the Nation's
economic centers. 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 Committee recommends a liquidation of contract
authorization of $26,738,536 for fiscal year 1996 payments to
air carriers which is the same as the limitation on
obligations.
limitation on obligations
The Committee recommends an obligation limitation of
$26,738,536, which is $26,738,536 above the administration's
request.
Under the Committee's recommended level, funding would not
be available to: (1) points that are located fewer than 75
highway miles from the nearest large-, medium-, or small-hub
airport; and (2) points that require a rate of subsidy per
passenger in excess of $200, when that point is less than 200
miles from a large or medium hub.
The amount recommended by the Committee would be for the
following points:
PROJECTED SUBSIDIZED ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE [EAS] FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
mileage to Average daily Annual subsidy
nearest hub enplanements rate projected Subsidy per
States/communities (small, at EAS point for fiscal passenger
medium, or (year ending year 1996
large) June 30, 1994)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona:
Kingman..................................... 103 10.7 $162,880 $24.34
Page........................................ 274 20.5 201,466 15.66
Prescott.................................... 103 41.1 162,880 6.34
Arkansas:
El Dorado/Camden............................ 108 10.9 850,472 124.89
Harrison.................................... 139 10.3 756,491 117.60
California: Crescent City....................... 233 13.0 298,868 36.68
Colorado:
Cortez...................................... 253 27.9 144,273 8.27
Lamar....................................... 162 4.1 172,139 67.32
Illinois: Mount Vernon.......................... 93 7.9 576,192 116.12
Iowa: Ottumwa................................... 92 6.3 309,704 79.07
Kansas:
Dodge City.................................. 156 13.1 280,874 34.15
Garden City................................. 209 21.9 280,874 20.49
Goodland.................................... 190 3.2 172,139 139.67
Great Bend.................................. 116 4.8 280,874 92.76
Hays........................................ 175 16.7 280,874 26.90
Liberal/Guymon.............................. 162 10.1 172,139 27.28
Topeka...................................... 76 31.8 47,788 2.40
Maine:
Bar Harbor.................................. 164 17.6 452,889 41.09
Rockland.................................... 79 11.2 452,889 64.60
Minnesota:
Fairmont.................................... 153 4.0 191,688 76.28
Fergus Falls................................ 185 10.9 227,340 33.21
Mankato..................................... 75 4.5 191,688 68.58
Missouri:
Cape Girardeau.............................. 133 18.8 254,525 21.58
Fort Leonard Wood........................... 130 12.2 293,184 38.52
Kirksville.................................. 158 8.4 366,503 69.39
Montana:
Glasgow..................................... 279 5.9 350,719 94.33
Glendive.................................... 223 2.9 608,761 339.14
Havre....................................... 251 4.4 507,660 185.14
Lewiston.................................... \1\ 400 3.6 507,660 224.73
Miles City.................................. \1\ 400 3.0 608,760 321.59
Sidney...................................... 273 7.7 608,761 125.73
Wolf Point.................................. 295 6.3 350,719 88.97
Nebraska:
Alliance.................................... 242 2.3 223,029 151.93
Chadron..................................... 301 2.3 223,029 152.66
Hastings.................................... 160 3.0 178,810 93.86
Kearney..................................... 186 11.2 507,672 72.38
McCook...................................... 259 3.4 328,862 155.86
North Platte................................ 282 5.2 144,292 44.05
Scottsbluff................................. 202 8.6 144,292 26.92
Nevada: Ely..................................... 236 5.7 727,082 203.61
New Mexico:
Alamogordo/Holloman AFB..................... 92 11.6 277,360 38.30
Clovis...................................... 106 14.6 310,860 34.01
Silver City/Hurley/Deming................... 163 10.4 408,814 62.62
New York:
Massena..................................... 149 20.1 205,665 16.32
Ogdensburg.................................. 127 10.5 205,665 31.27
North Dakota:
Devils Lake................................. 403 11.8 322,943 42.75
Dickinson................................... 313 7.5 163,295 34.57
Jamestown................................... 304 10.8 322,943 11.94
Oklahoma:
Enid........................................ 91 9.4 446,752 70.71
Ponca City.................................. 88 11.8 446,752 56.26
Pennsylvania: Oil City/Franklin................. 91 30.5 168,592 18.87
Puerto Rico: Ponce.............................. 80 31.2 325,247 16.63
South Dakota: Yankton........................... 96 10.1 417,220 67.50
Texas: Brownwood................................ 153 4.7 429,722 162.27
Utah:
Cedar City.................................. 173 18.7 503,354 43.11
Moab........................................ 241 6.1 484,552 127.51
Vernal...................................... 171 17.0 305,311 28.70
Virginia: Staunton.............................. 108 35.0 308,054 14.04
Washington: Ephrata/Moses Lake.................. 122 16.1 326,875 32.42
West Virginia:
Beckley..................................... 186 19.3 250,498 20.74
Clarksburg/Fairmont......................... 107 8.8 259,689 46.92
Morgantown.................................. 75 12.0 259,689 34.60
Princeton/Bluefield......................... 145 21.6 250,498 18.56
Wyoming: Worland................................ 164 9.1 167,583 29.38
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal of long-term non-Alaska rates.... .............. .............. 21,169,673 ..............
Other projected subsidy obligations:
Long-term Alaska rates...................... .............. .............. 1,806,143 ..............
Expected subsidy rate adjustments and
carrier selections in fiscal year 1996..... .............. .............. 2,262,720 ..............
Estimated fiscal year 1996 hold-in
compensation............................... .............. .............. 1,500,000 ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total projected fiscal year 1996
obligations............................ .............. .............. 26,738,536 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Distance from medium or large hub airport.
Payments to Air Carriers
(rescission on contract authorization)
(airport and airway trust fund)
Rescission, 1995........................................ ($4,000,000)
Budget estimate, 1996 \1\............................... (38,600,000)
House allowance......................................... (23,600,000)
Committee recommendation................................ (11,861,464)
\1\ Consistent with the budget proposal to eliminate this program in
1996, contract authority previously enacted is proposed to be rescinded.
The House has included bill language which would rescind
$23,600,000 of contract authority funding for the payments to
air carriers program, because the fully authorized level of
$38,600,000 in contract authority would not be available under
the House's proposed $15,000,000 limitation on obligations.
Under the Senate proposal only $11,861,464 of the contract
authority would be unused.
Payments to Air Carriers
(Rescission)
Rescission, 1995........................................................
Budget estimate, 1996................................... -$6,786,971
House allowance......................................... -6,786,971
Committee recommendation
-6,786,971
The amount proposed for rescission represents balances from
prior years. The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, section 419,
included a subsidy program to ensure scheduled air service to
specified communities. Prior to fiscal year 1992, funding for
this subsidy was provided from the ``General fund'' account.
Starting in fiscal year 1992, this program has been funded from
the ``Payments to air carriers trust fund'' account. For the
past several years, balances have been carried forward in the
``General fund'' account. These balances are no longer required
as the program is now funded from the trust fund account.
Rental Payments
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $144,419,000
Budget estimate, 1996 \1\ \2\........................... 143,436,000
House allowance......................................... 130,803,000
Committee recommendation................................ 139,689,000
\1\ Rental payments for the FHWA are separately budgeted but reimbursed
to this account.
\2\ Includes budget amendment to reduce this account by $2,000,000 to
offset an increase for aviation security.
Rental payments to the General Services Administration
[GSA] are included as a separate line-item appropriation in the
bill.
The Committee has provided an appropriation of $139,689,000
for rental payments in fiscal year 1996, plus $18,750,000 to be
paid by reimbursement from the highway trust fund. This is a
2.5-percent decrease from the 1995 enacted level.
GSA RENTAL PAYMENTS \1\
[Dollars and square feet in thousands]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1994enacted Fiscal year Fiscal year 1995enacted Fiscal year 1996request
Administration -------------------------- 1994 GSA ---------------------------------------------------
Funding Square feet billings Funding Square feet Funding Square feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Highway Administration............................... [$17,524] [987] [$16,503] [$18,044] [987] [$18,750] [991]
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration............... 4,511 154 4,407 4,716 155 4,483 155
Federal Railroad Administration.............................. 3,524 141 3,082 3,363 135 3,318 138
Federal Transit Administration............................... 3,295 108 3,184 3,332 109 3,317 108
Federal Aviation Administration.............................. 74,858 4,063 71,024 75,820 4,374 74,710 4,082
U.S. Coast Guard............................................. 44,746 2,430 40,602 42,281 2,347 41,028 2,308
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation.................. 175 6 170 181 6 169 6
Research and Special Programs Administration................. 2,303 76 2,258 2,378 77 2,459 80
Office of the Inspector General.............................. 2,604 95 2,309 2,579 94 2,542 94
Office of Secretary of Transportation........................ 13,475 1,442 13,257 9,679 1,440 11,306 1,441
Bureau of Transportation Statistics.......................... 114 3 114 90 3 104 7
OST--rental payments to GSA.................................. [149,605] ........... [140,407] [144,419] ........... [143,436] ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................... 149,605 8,518 140,407 144,419 8,740 143,436 8,419
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rescissions.............................................. [1,781] ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Federal Highway Administration............................... 17,524 945 16,476 18,044 987 18,750 991
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Department of Transportation (excludes MarAd)... 165,348 9,463 156,883 162,463 9,727 162,186 9,410
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Enacted as a single account under the Office of the Secretary of Transportation. The budgets propose appropriations language which directs the
reimbursement of FHWA GSA rent from FHWA LGOE account to the consolidated account.
Headquarters Facilities
Appropriations, 1995....................................................
Budget estimate, 1996................................... $331,000,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation
...........................
The administration has requested funding for the
acquisition or construction of a Department of Transportation
headquarters building. Leases for two headquarters buildings
will expire within the next 8 years--Nassif building in 2000
and Transpoint in 2003. Since purchase of headquarters space
will be more cost effective than leasing, this strategy
includes the acquisition of 1.1 million square feet of space
near the current location. Funding is requested in 1996 to
provide for orderly planning and acquisition of the space.
Funds are budgeted in DOT as a result of a change in
administrative policy to budget for space acquisition in the
affected agency rather than through GSA.
Minority Business Resource Center Program
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $1,900,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 1,900,000
House allowance......................................... 1,900,000
Committee recommendation
1,900,000
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization
[OSDBU]/Minority Business Resource Center [MBRC].--The OSDBU/
MBRC provides assistance in obtaining short-term working
capital and bonding for disadvantaged, minority, and women-
owned businesses [DBE/MBE/WBE's]. In fiscal year 1996, the
short-term loan program will focus on the lending of 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 reflects the
President's budget proposal, which segregated such activities
in response to changes made by the Federal Credit Reform Act of
1990. The limitation on direct loans under the Minority
Business Resource Center is at the administration's requested
level of $15,000,000.
The Department is projecting that the authorized loan level
of $15,000,000 will be reached in fiscal years 1995 and 1996.
The program provides a valuable source of working capital for
minority businesses to manage their transportation-related
contracts.
Minority Business Outreach
Appropriations, 1995.................................... ( \1\ )
Budget estimate, 1996................................... $2,900,000
House allowance......................................... 2,900,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,100,000
\1\ Previously funded under OST, salaries and expenses.
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.
ICC Sunset
Appropriations, 1995....................................................
Budget estimate, 1996................................... $4,705,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation
4,705,000
A separate salaries and expenses request was included in
the budget for $4,705,000 representing functions that would
transfer to DOT upon sunset of the Interstate Commerce
Commission. The administration proposed legislation to sunset
the Interstate Commerce Commission with residual rail and motor
carrier functions transferring to the DOT. Handling of consumer
complaints regarding household goods movers and review of rail
mergers and acquisitions were proposed to be transferred to the
Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice,
respectively.
State Infrastructure Banks
Appropriations, 1995....................................................
Budget estimate, 1996 \1\............................... $2,000,000,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 250,000,000
\1\ The administration included funding to capitalize State
infrastructure banks in the ``Unified Transportation Infrastructure
Investment Program'' account.
The Committee has included a general provision, section
349, to establish infrastructure banks. The bill language
allows States to deposit funds into the bank from non-Federal
or Federal sources, including apportioned highway funds, for
initial capital of the bank. In addition, the Committee has
appropriated $250,000,000 from the airport and airway trust
fund to cover expected aviation-related infrastructure
improvements.
The Committee considers the Alameda transportation corridor
in Los Angeles County, CA, as an example of a project that
would greatly benefit from the innovative financing option as
provided in this bill. The project will streamline rail and
highway transportation between the Ports of Los Angeles and
Long Beach, and intermodal connections in downtown Los Angeles.
The rail portion of the project will consolidate the operations
of three freight carriers into one higher speed corridor and
eliminate conflicts with highway crossings. Highways will also
be improved to provide better access from the ports to the
freeways. The increased transportation efficiency will provide
the added benefit of decreased air pollution.
The Senate recently designated the route as a high-priority
corridor on the National Highway System, enabling the Secretary
of Transportation to work cooperatively with the project
sponsors on using creative financing to advance the project,
including eligibility for a line of credit. Shipping revenues
from the completed project will enable the sponsors to repay
construction financing.
Unified Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program
Appropriations, 1995....................................................
Budget estimate, 1996................................... $24,392,976,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation
...........................
The budget request submitted by the administration proposed
that certain programs for the Department of Transportation be
funded from the Unified Transportation Infrastructure
Investment Program [UTIIP]. This new account is structured in
two parts: Federal activities and State and local activities,
reflecting the administration's initiative to shift programs to
State and local decisionmaking.
While infrastructure spending is $2,300,000,000 below
comparable fiscal year 1995 funding, new and more flexible
funding mechanisms are proposed which should allow States and
localities to stretch and leverage reduced Federal dollars. The
new programs proposed include an $18,000,000,000 unified
allocation grant that will be available to States and
localities to spend on their transportation priorities. UTIIP
also includes a $1,000,000,000 discretionary grant to focus on
projects of national or regional significance and
$2,000,000,000 to capitalize State infrastructure banks.
Funding for such activities as Amtrak, Northeast corridor, and
transit operating assistance which were separately appropriated
in previous years are included as line items in UTIIP. Also
included is $1,100,000,000 for prior commitments including full
funding agreements for transit new start projects, WMATA, and
existing airport letters of intent. The following table
compares funding levels for fiscal year 1995 and those proposed
in 1996 both under UTIIP and current law.
UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT PROGRAM--APPROPRIATIONS
AND OBLIGATION LIMITATIONS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 President's budget
1995 -------------------------------
comparable Current law
\1\ UTIIP policy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State and local
Unified grant........... \2\ 22,911,258 \2\ 23,941,663 18,000,000
State infrastructure
banks.................. .............. .............. 2,000,000
Transit operating
assistance............. 710,000 500,000 500,000
Prior commitment (LOI's,
new starts, WMATA)..... 1,009,018 1,142,972 1,142,972
Rhode Island rail
development............ 5,000 10,000 10,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total, State and
local initiatives 24,635,276 25,594,635 21,652,972
Direct Federal Programs
Discretionary grants
(new program).......... .............. \3\ 300,000 1,000,000
Federal lands........... 448,000 \4\ 348,432 441,775
Research and development
\5\.................... 239,079 217,237 219,027
Grants to Amtrak........ 772,000 750,000 750,000
Northeast corridor
improvement project.... 200,000 235,000 235,000
Pennsylvania Station
redevelopment.......... 40,000 50,000 50,000
Administrative expenses
\6\.................... 43,060 44,202 44,202
-----------------------------------------------
Total, direct
Federal.......... 1,742,139 1,944,871 2,740,004
-----------------------------------------------
Total, UTIIP...... 26,377,415 27,539,506 24,392,976
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects the impact of reductions pursuant to ISTEA section 1003(c),
for example, Federal lands.
\2\ Includes portions of Federal-aid highways, grants-in-aid for
airports (except for existing LOI's), transit formula capital and
discretionary grants (except for FFGA's), and local rail freight
assistance (fiscal year 1995 only).
\3\ Congestion relief initiative.
\4\ Estimated obligations.
\5\ Includes in each year intelligent transportation systems, university
transportation centers, and transit planning and research.
\6\ Includes transit only; FHWA limitation on general operating expenses
included as drawdown under unified grant.
general provisions
Advisory committee cap.--The Committee has included bill
language which would limit the total amount to be spent for
advisory committees to $850,000. Twenty-eight committees
currently exist to provide advisory services to nine different
modal and administrative agencies of the Department of
Transportation. The amount recommended is the same as the
fiscal year 1995 level. The House has not included bill
language which caps advisory committee expenses.
The Committee believes that the Department's use of
advisory committees, when carried out judiciously, is a cost-
effective means of obtaining advice and information. Advisory
committees generally have the advantages of timeliness and
objectivity over the alternatives of internal task forces and
external contracting. These advantages are especially germane
when the issues being studied are subjective and controversial
and require conclusions to be drawn on the basis of qualitative
data. The Committee strongly encourages DOT to continue to draw
heavily on the expertise, guidance, and breadth of the
intelligent transportation systems community perspective of the
Intelligent Transportation Society of America and the avionics
expertise of the RTCA.
Department appointees.--The Committee has included bill
language, which is similar to that included in previous years,
which limits the total number of political and Presidential
appointees in the Department of Transportation. The
Department's appointee cap is set at 100.
Cooperative agreements.--The Committee continued a general
provision, included in the fiscal year 1995 appropriations
bill, which will grant the Secretary of Transportation specific
statutory authority to enter into grants, cooperative
agreements, and other transactions with any entity in execution
of the technology reinvestment project [TRP] authorized under
the Defense Conversion, Reinvestment, and Transition Assistance
Act of 1992 and related legislation.
Telecommuting public information program.--The Committee
has included a general provision which directs the Department
of Transportation to identify successful telecommuting programs
used by Government agencies and private companies and to
publicize information about such programs in order to broaden
public awareness of the benefits of telecommuting. The
Secretary would also be required to report to Congress on his
findings, conclusions, and recommendations with respect to
telecommuting within 1 year of enactment. It is in the national
interest to encourage telecommuting because it can enable
flexible family-friendly employment, reduce air pollution, and
conserve energy.
Bonus and award payments.--The Department of Transportation
has budgeted $26,627,927 for performance awards for all
employee levels. All of the bonus and award payments are
discretionary. The Committee has included language limiting the
allowable Department bonuses and awards to the amounts depicted
below.
In each of the accounts that contain personnel funds, the
reduction associated with the bonuses and awards is depicted as
an accountwide adjustment. The total amount recommended for
each agency versus the 1996 budget request is depicted below.
The Committee has included a general provision in the bill
which limits funds for employee bonuses and awards to
$25,875,075.
PERFORMANCE AWARDS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Agency Fiscal year 1996 budget Committee
1995 limitation estimate recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the
Secretary........... $662,036 $681,000 $662,036
Coast Guard.......... 1,728,626 1,720,000 1,720,000
Federal Aviation
Administration...... 20,957,888 21,678,000 20,957,888
Federal Highway
Administration...... 1,342,432 1,303,500 1,303,500
Bureau of
Transportation
Statistics.......... 13,981 22,427 18,000
National Highway
Traffic Safety
Administration...... 304,897 305,000 304,897
Federal Railroad
Administration...... 307,900 314,000 307,900
Federal Transit
Administration...... 220,857 221,000 220,857
St. Lawrence Seaway
Development
Corporation......... 49,217 49,000 49,000
Research and Special
Programs
Administration \1\.. 148,170 148,000 145,000
Office of Inspector
General............. 185,996 186,000 185,996
--------------------------------------------------
Total.......... 25,922,000 26,627,927 25,875,075
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes Volpe National Transportation Systems Center.
DOT REORGANIZATION
Both the administration and Congress have been engaged in a
fundamental reassessment of the means by which the Federal
Government fulfills its responsibilities to the American
people. The President initiated the ``National Performance
Review'' [NPR] soon after taking office, and it has already
produced substantial downsizing and performance gains at DOT.
Efforts to reduce annual deficits have also put increasing
pressure on the Department to find ways to do more with less.
It has become clear that the most fundamental barrier to
implementing broad-based, flexible, and well balanced
transportation policy and programs is the outmoded division of
authority among the different modes of transportation. DOT was
originally created as a holding company for existing agencies,
including the Federal Highway Administration, the Coast Guard,
and the Federal Aviation Administration. Over time, new
organizations have been created or grafted onto this structure,
so DOT now includes nine separate agencies, plus the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics. This brings with it tremendous
redundancy, particularly in administrative and headquarters
activities targeted by the NPR for substantial streamlining.
Further, it means a high degree of complexity and potential
confusion for DOT customers--in industry, State and local
government, and the public at large--who now must go to many
separate offices for different services and programs.
Organization change is also essential as ambitious goals are
implemented for downsizing of the Department.
The DOT proposal for consolidation, which was submitted to
Congress on April 4, 1995, involves three major areas. First,
all surface and maritime activities, other than Coast Guard and
the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation [SLSDC], would
be combined in a single Intermodal Transportation
Administration [ITA]. Second, the Federal Aviation
Administration would continue its safety and security
functions, incorporating also commercial space activities now
housed with the Office of the Secretary. Third, is the Coast
Guard--a military service that transfers to the Navy upon
declaration of war or when the President directs, and which has
a distinct set of functions. No change in the Coast Guard's
current status or activities is proposed, except for transfer
of bridge-related functions to the ITA. The SLSDC is already a
wholly owned Government corporation and would be made a free-
standing entity, eliminating an additional management layer.
The following table lists those accounts affected by the
reorganization.
Accounts proposed to be merged into the Intermodal Transportation
Administration:
Unified transportation infrastructure investment program;
Federal-aid highways; Right-of-way revolving fund liquidating
account; Highway-related safety grants; Motor carrier safety
grants; Motor carrier safety; Operations and research [NHTSA];
Operations and research, trust fund [NHTSA]; Highway traffic
safety grants; Office of the Administrator [FRA]; Railroad
safety; Railroad research and development; Next generation
high-speed rail; Railroad rehabilitation and improvement
program account; Trust fund share of next generation high-speed
rail; Violent crime reduction programs; Alteration of bridges;
Operating-differential subsidies; Maritime security program;
Operations and training (Maritime Administration); Maritime
guaranteed loan (title XI) program account; Research and
special programs; Pipeline safety; and Emergency preparedness
grants.
Accounts proposed to be included in the Federal Aviation
Administration:
Operations; Aviation insurance revolving fund; Aircraft
purchase loan guarantee program; Facilities and equipment; and
Research, engineering, and development.
Accounts proposed to be included in the Coast Guard:
Operating expenses; Acquisition, construction, and
improvements; Environmental compliance and restoration; Retired
pay; Reserve training; and Research, development, test, and
evaluation.
Account proposed to be established as an independent agency:
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation: Operations and
maintenance.
IMPACTS OF BUDGET CUTS ON TRANSPORTATION
Under the budget resolution, Federal transportation
spending will decrease significantly, from an outlay level of
$39,300,000,000 in fiscal year 1995 to $32,000,000,000 in
fiscal year 2002, a cut of approximately 20 percent in nominal
dollars. Such a dramatic reduction clearly calls for a
fundamental review of transportation programs, and the roles of
Federal, State, and local governments and the private sector in
meeting transportation needs.
Absent changes in the current structure of transportation
programs, the cuts in the budget resolution will be
devastating. Existing programs were not designed to absorb such
cuts and the projected spending levels will not support current
programs and services. Both the Senate Budget Committee in its
report, and the House-Senate conference in its report, noted
this and called for major changes in the Department of
Transportation and its programs, including but not limited to
program downsizing, streamlining and consolidation, and air
traffic control privatization.
The top priority of our economic agenda is deficit
reduction, and transportation must play a role in that effort.
However, if this is carried out as nothing more than a budget-
cutting exercise, without changes in the way Government
provides services, the results on the Nation's mobility and
economy could be devastating. These reductions not only provide
an opportunity for revamping transportation programs, but also
demand it, to ensure that at the same time that we carry
through on our commitment to reduce the deficit, we also
maintain our commitment to a safe and efficient national
transportation system.
Reform of transportation programs should be made in the
context of overall governmental reform efforts underway in the
administration and the Congress. Principles such as downsizing,
streamlining, and the introduction of market forces can and
should be a part of any DOT reorganization. Such actions can
eliminate redundancies, such as the existence of 10 separate
personnel and budget offices throughout the Department. This
step would not only make the Department more efficient in its
use of taxpayer funds, but also maximize the investment in
infrastructure and services, rather than in a Federal
bureaucracy.
Investment in transportation infrastructure.--Recent
reports indicate that America's infrastructure deficit, the
incremental cost above and beyond existing expenditures of
bringing our highways and bridges into good repair, is more
than $300,000,000,000. At the same time, transportation demand
is growing. The impacts of this situation are startling. Over
70 percent of peak hour travel on urban interstates now occurs
under congested conditions. The Nation's passenger rail system
is starved for capital improvement. With American businesses
increasingly relying on an efficient, well-maintained
intermodal transportation network to serve just-in-time
delivery systems, disinvestment in transportation
infrastructure could have devastating impacts on our mobility
and on our economic well-being.
Under these circumstances, a variety of strategies are
necessary to stretch the Federal dollar and attract investment
from new sources, including the private sector. DOT has
successfully launched an innovative finance initiative designed
to increase private investment in transportation. As Federal
funding becomes more restricted, however, efforts must focus on
eliminating redtape, and focusing investments in as efficient a
way as possible. The administration has proposed greater
flexibility in transportation funding and project selection,
with a greater reliance on the planning process created under
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
Particularly given the budgetary constraints facing
transportation, this approach merits serious consideration.
Air traffic control.--An area of particular concern is the
operation of the air traffic control system. This concern is
widespread, as evidenced by such proposals as the
administration's plan for a Government-owned corporation to
take over the system, to the budget resolution's call for a
privatized system, to various proposals to make the FAA an
independent agency.
The Committee has been frustrated with the inability of the
FAA, working under the traditional governmental structure and
rules, to keep its modernization program on track and with the
pattern of cost overruns and inefficiencies, that have plagued
the FAA. Even with the significant and positive changes
recently made, the prospects for a system that can keep pace
with the demands of a growing aviation industry are dim unless
fundamental changes are made in the structure and financing of
the air traffic control system.
The provision of air traffic control [ATC] services is a
unique function in government. Unlike traditional regulatory or
grant-making functions, ATC services are directly and actively
linked with the day-to-day operations of an entire industry. As
the industry grows, so must the ability to serve it through
ATC. Over the last decade, this Committee has worked to provide
adequate funding to help match services with demand. However,
the budget resolution seriously jeopardizes the Committee's
ability to provide support services that keep up with demand.
It is projected by the FAA that the demand for ATC services
will grow by 18 percent from fiscal year 1995 to fiscal year
2002. However, under the budget resolution, the resources
available to the FAA, in the form of outlays, would shrink by
approximately 19 percent in that same timeframe. Under this
scenario, the level of service that exists today simply cannot
be supported.
COMMITTEE RESPONSE TO BUDGET RESOLUTION
The majority of the changes necessary to address the out-
year budget problems comes under the jurisdiction of other
committees. To date, no significant transportation reform
legislation has been considered in the Senate. However, because
of the need to begin dealing with the budgetary realities, and
in an attempt to minimize adverse impacts on the Department's
programs and services, the Committee has taken several key
steps to provide new flexibility and to begin introducing the
necessary elements of governmental reform. These measures are
described below. The Committee looks forward to the
consideration of more comprehensive reforms to the Department
and its programs and services by the authorizing committees,
and will take those changes into account when preparing future
appropriations for the Department.
State and regional infrastructure banks.--The Committee has
included a general provision, section 349, to establish a new
funding mechanism for States' infrastructure. Eligibility for
State infrastructure banks [SIB] would be the same as under the
administration's proposed unified allocation. This provides for
a surface transportation program which includes all currently
eligible ISTEA activities as well as additional surface
transportation activities such as freight rail and port access.
It also includes all currently eligible aviation activities and
certain new air eligibility such as off-airport access roads.
The Committee believes that large intermodal projects and
projects with their own revenue streams make the best
candidates. Under the Committee's proposal, SIB's will be
initially capitalized at $250,000,000 from the airport trust
fund and funds deposited in the bank by States using
apportioned highway funds.
Funds would be apportioned among the States, in order to
provide State and local governments with enhanced ability to
tap private markets for infrastructure projects; to enter into
shared-financing partnerships with private transportation
entities; and to create new intergovernmental financing
partnerships among State and sub-State entities. SIB's would
have limited ongoing Federal financial oversight and would have
no federally imposed sub-State or population set-aside nor any
functional set-asides. State participation in SIB's would be
voluntary.
In addition to project loans, SIB's could also finance
various forms of credit enhancement, acquisition or lease of
rolling stock for the purpose of lease pooling, back-stop
financing for construction loans, pooling of debt issuances,
and refinancing of outstanding debt. SIB's could also receive
grants of leveraged funds or fund transferred to the SIB from a
State's other Federal infrastructure program funds.
According to AASHTO, about 17 States have current
legislation or proposed legislation which is directed toward
establishing SIB's or SIB-type institutions. The Committee
believes that all 50 States could participate in the SIB's in
one form or another.
FAA personnel and procurement reform.--Sections 350 and 351
of the Committee bill provide that funds provided for FAA
operations and capital improvements are exempt from various
Federal personnel and procurement requirements. This will
result in the more efficient modernization of the ATC system,
and in a more efficient and cost-effective deployment of the
air traffic control work force. This does not, however, do away
with the need for fundamental reform of the budget process with
regard to air traffic control. It is intended only as an
interim step toward a reformed air traffic control structure.
Aviation user fee structure.--The Committee directs the
Department to prepare a new aviation user fee structure for air
traffic control and other services that would more closely
align payments with costs imposed, and to submit a report on
such a new structure not later than December 1, 1995. This
would assist in preparing a more accurate determination of
system needs, and in the consideration of an alternative budget
treatment for air traffic control and other aviation funding.
Report on impacts of budget cuts.--The Committee directs
the Department to submit to the Committee, not later than
November 1, 1995, a report on the impacts on transportation of
the budget resolution if no significant changes in
transportation authorizations occur. This report shall include
discussion of services that would be discontinued, programs
that would be eliminated, and the reductions in investment
programs that would result from lower levels of spending
without the benefit of changes such as those assumed in the
budget resolution.
Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking [ANPRM].--The FAA is
directed to initiate, in not more than 90 days, an ANPRM on the
range of regulatory and operational changes, and their impacts,
necessitated by funding limitations that would result from a
lack of change in the FAA's structure and funding. Issues
addressed in the ANPRM should include: closure of level I or II
air traffic towers; closure of flight service stations; delays
in the issuance of aircraft, airmen, and other certificates;
the effect on delays in the aviation system and any measures
necessary to address increased delays; impacts on airport
capacity and safety if Federal assistance is terminated;
reductions in the number and frequency of safety and security
inspections; and the impact on the FAA's efforts to enhance the
international safety of Americans abroad. The Committee expects
the FAA to seek widespread participation in this process by the
public and the user community, including through public
meetings.
Asset sales.--The Coast Guard and FAA, like many other
agencies, are reorganizing and downsizing while providing
critical services to the public at less cost. Both the Senate
and House of Representatives, in their respective versions of
the concurrent resolution on the budget for 1996, indicated
clear support for seeking a change in the rules that currently
do not allow agencies to obtain budgetary credit for the sale
of governmental assets.
The Committee believes that the Coast Guard, the FAA, and
the Government as a whole, would benefit substantially if
allowed budgetary credit for property they expect to excess as
part of downsizing efforts. The President's fiscal year 1996
budget also proposed a change in the asset scoring rule to
allow the proceeds of sales to be scored as credits in the
budget.
The Committee strongly supports the lifting of the
prohibition on the scoring of asset sales for budget purposes
and the concurrent generation of receipts to reduce the Federal
budget deficit. Clearly, there is the potential for a very
positive benefit if the Coast Guard and the FAA are permitted
to receive credit for the value of excessed property.
Field office and other consolidations.--The Committee has
retained section 335 of the general provisions title proposed
by the House, which permanently cancels $25,000,000 from
budgetary resources provided to the Department of
Transportation. These savings are expected from the Secretary
reducing the existing field office structure and, to the extent
practicable, consolidating the Department's administrative
activities. In testimony presented to this Committee by the
General Accounting Office, it was stated that the Department
may realize significant savings by consolidating many of its
existing field offices into larger and less specialized
offices. The Committee expects that these savings will not
necessarily come through simple consolidation, but that the
Department will also seek to consolidate overhead activities
such as payroll, public affairs, grants administration, as well
as accounting and personnel functions.
U.S. COAST GUARD
Summary of Fiscal Year 1996 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
$3,654,822,000 for the activities of the Coast Guard in fiscal
year 1996. The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Program 1995 enacted Fiscal year Houseallowance Committee
\1\ 1996 estimate recommendations \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating expenses......................... \3\ 2,635,839 2,618,316 2,565,607 2,586,000
Acquisition, construction, and improvements
\4\....................................... 362,937 428,200 375,175 366,800
Environmental compliance and restoration... 23,497 25,000 21,000 21,000
Port safety development.................... .............. .............. .............. 15,000
Alteration of bridges...................... .............. 2,000 16,000 2,000
Retired pay................................ 562,585 582,022 582,022 582,022
Reserve training........................... 64,977 64,859 61,859 62,000
Research, development, test, and evaluation 20,306 22,500 18,500 20,000
Boat safety................................ 25,000 .............. 20,000 ...................
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................ 3,695,141 3,742,897 3,660,163 3,654,822
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes reductions pursuant to sections 330 and 331 of Public Law 103-331 and amounts transferred to OST,
salaries and expenses for civil rights activities.
\2\ Includes $300,000,000 provided by the Department of Defense for national defense missions.
\3\ Includes $11,200,000 in Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1995 and $28,297,000 in Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1995.
\4\ Excludes $6,378,000 reduction of unobligated balances for procurement and procurement-related expenses
canceled pursuant to section 323 of Public law 103-331.
Operating Expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Trust Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations,
1995 \1\......... $2,585,839,347 $50,000,000 $2,635,839,347
Budget estimate,
1996............. 2,593,316,000 25,000,000 2,618,316,000
House allowance... 2,515,607,000 50,000,000 2,565,607,000
Committee
recommendation... 2,261,000,000 25,000,000 \2\ 2,586,000,00
0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $11,200,000 by transfer from the Department of Defense and
$28,297,000 in Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1995.
\2\ Includes $300,000,000 by transfer from the Department of 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.
Headquarters administration.--The headquarters
administration activity provides executive direction and
servicewide administrative support at the headquarters location
of the Coast Guard.
committee funding recommendation
The Committee recommendation for Coast Guard operating
expenses is $2,586,000,000, including $25,000,000 from the
oilspill liability trust fund and $300,000,000 from DOD for
national defense missions.
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
1995 Budgetrequest Houseallowance Committee
enacted recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pay and allowances:
Military pay and benefits....................... 1,226,672 1,230,154 1,209,853 1,212,254
Civilian pay and benefits....................... 173,367 177,263 177,613 176,438
Permanent change of station..................... 59,967 60,233 60,233 60,233
Medical care and equipment...................... 124,487 124,185 117,885 124,185
Leased housing.................................. ........... ............. 14,900 14,900
Activitywide adjustments........................ ........... ............. 9,850 -8,000
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total, pay and allowances..................... 1,584,495 1,591,835 1,570,634 1,580,010
===========================================================
Depot level maintenance:
Aircraft........................................ 148,741 139,041 139,041 139,041
Electronics..................................... 36,032 31,549 31,549 31,549
Shore facilities................................ 94,126 95,645 95,645 94,126
Vessels......................................... 101,165 99,081 99,081 99,081
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total, depot level maintenance................ 380,064 365,316 365,316 363,797
===========================================================
Operations and support:
Area operations and support:
Cutters:
Medium endurance (WMEC)................. 18,219 15,451 15,451 15,451
High endurance (WHEC)................... 10,807 11,070 11,070 10,807
Polar WAGB's............................ 1,936 2,024 2,024 2,024
Area offices................................ 11,333 12,156 12,156 11,333
Maintenance and logistics commands.......... 122,882 125,616 125,616 122,882
Communication stations...................... 3,107 3,262 3,262 3,107
District operations and support:
District offices............................ 61,426 56,641 51,041 56,641
Groups/bases................................ 68,015 68,592 68,592 68,015
Combined group/air station.................. 9,468 9,827 9,827 9,468
Air stations................................ 46,927 45,028 45,028 45,028
Marine safety offices....................... 7,645 9,785 9,785 8,500
Long-range electronic navaids (Loran)....... 6,254 6,491 6,491 6,254
Cutters-WLB's and smaller; Mackinaw......... 27,984 29,599 29,599 29,599
Vessel traffic service [VTS] systems........ 219 247 247 247
Ammunition and small arms....................... 5,791 4,707 4,707 4,707
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total, operations and support................. 393,083 400,496 394,896 394,063
===========================================================
Recruiting and training support:
Recruiting...................................... 5,861 5,467 5,467 5,467
Training centers (Yorktown and Petaluma)........ 27,535 26,522 26,522 26,522
Coast Guard Academy............................. 12,635 12,747 12,747 12,747
Professional training and education............. 25,833 26,207 25,207 26,207
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total, recruiting and training support........ 71,864 70,943 69,943 70,943
===========================================================
Coast Guard-wide centralized services and support:
Headquarters-managed units:
Supply centers.............................. 8,914 8,554 8,554 8,554
Finance center.............................. 4,682 4,776 4,776 4,776
Military pay and personnel center........... 1,115 1,137 1,137 1,137
Activities Europe........................... 5,552 -1,372 -1,372 -1,372
Coast Guard yard............................ 1,913 1,945 1,945 1,945
Strike teams................................ 2,531 2,678 2,678 2,678
National Pollution Funds Center............. 1,207 1,231 1,231 1,231
COMDAC support facility..................... 2,024 2,054 2,054 2,054
Air station Washington, DC.................. 907 925 925 925
Operations Systems Center................... 5,123 6,901 6,901 6,901
Telecommunications/information systems
command.................................... 2,801 2,919 2,919 2,900
Navigation Systems Center................... 3,866 404 404 404
Intelligence Coordination Center............ 258 263 263 263
Electronics Engineering Center.............. 2,828 3,533 3,533 3,533
Coast Guard Institute....................... 744 759 759 759
Research and Development Center............. 429 436 436 436
Military Personnel Center................... 786 801 651 801
Headquarters.................................... 120,918 120,125 119,497 119,800
Centralized bill paying:
Postal...................................... 7,516 6,674 6,674 6,674
FTS......................................... 12,500 12,060 10,626 11,500
Federal employment compensation............. 6,243 6,890 6,243 6,890
Unemployment compensation................... 4,546 4,661 4,546 4,546
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total, Coast Guard-wide centralized
services and support..................... 197,403 189,726 185,380 187,335
===========================================================
Total, accountwide adjustments............ ........... ............. 18,562 10,148
===========================================================
Total appropriation....................... 2,607,542 2,618,316 2,565,607 2,586,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Fiscal year 1995 total includes $11,200,000 provided in the DOD Appropriations Act for military pay raise
and $28,297,000 provided in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act.
PAY AND ALLOWANCES
Military pay and benefits.--The Committee has concurred
with the House's recommendation which reduces the general
detail account, also known as the overhead account, from the
requested level of $174,812,000 to $171,812,000. In addition,
under the military pay and benefits line, the Committee has
concurred with the House's initiative to separate the leased
housing payments from the ``Military pay and benefits''
account, to create its own subaccount. The reductions
associated with these two moves is $17,900,000. The Committee
has restored the $1,401,000 which was cut by the House. This
would restore the military pay raise to the 2.4 percent which
was requested in the administration's request.
Though the Committee supports the military essentiality
initiative, which would where possible convert military
positions to civilian positions, it does not include a
reduction of $1,000,000, which the House estimates would be
saved if 65 positions were converted from military to civilian.
Civilian pay and benefits.--The Committee has provided
$176,438,000 for civilian pay and benefits. The Committee's
reduction of $825,000, which was also included by the House,
would reduce the youth opportunity staffing request. The
Committee does not agree with the House's position which
recommended an additional $1,000,000 above the budget request
for the Coast Guard to hire 10 additional Senior Executive
Service staffing positions. The Committee believes that, if the
Commandant of the Coast Guard thought it was the best use of
his resources to hire additional SES staff, he would so inform
the Committee and request it in the budget.
Medical care and equipment.--The Committee has provided the
full amount requested for medical care and equipment, which is
$6,300,000 above that provided by the House. The Committee
feels that the Coast Guard has done a good job to keep its
medical care and equipment line item under budget. In fact,
this account has seen a slight decrease from the amount of
resources required in fiscal year 1995.
Activitywide adjustments.--The Committee has reduced the
overall ``Pay and allowances'' account by $8,000,000, with the
admonition to the Coast Guard to accelerate its existing
streamlining and restructuring plans where possible without
jeopardizing safety-related operations. The House had included
a reduction of $4,850,000 associated with accelerating the
existing streamlining plan, and $5,000,000 associated with the
acceleration of its 1997 restructuring plan.
DEPOT LEVEL MAINTENANCE
Shore facilities.--The Committee has made only one small
adjustment to the overall depot level maintenance request,
which was $365,316,000. That adjustment was to hold the depot
level maintenance for shore facilities request to the fiscal
year 1995 level. In each of the other depot level budgets, the
fiscal year 1996 request was below the amount of funding
required in 1995; and the Committee has, in those items,
provided the full amount requested.
OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT
Area operations and support
Cutters.--The Committee has provided the full amount
requested for the medium endurance [WMEC] and polar [WAGB]
cutters. The Committee has held the funding for the high
endurance [WHEC] cutters to the fiscal year 1995 level.
Area offices.--The Committee has held the funding level for
area offices to the 1995 enacted level, which results in a
reduction of $23,000 from the fiscal year 1996 request.
Maintenance and logistics commands.--The Committee has held
the maintenance and logistics commands funding level to
$122,882,000, which was the fiscal year 1995 resource level.
This results in a reduction of $734,000 from the request. The
Committee has also taken the same position for communications
stations, and held it to the fiscal year 1995 level of
$3,107,000, a slight reduction of $55,000 from the request.
District operations and support/district offices
The Committee has restored funding for the district
offices, and does not agree with the specific cut of $5,600,000
directed by the House. The Committee has provided the full
amount requested, which was $56,641,000. The Committee agrees
with the House's observation that the Coast Guard does have an
extensive field organization, including districts, area
commands, groups, bases, stations, and maintenance and
logistics command centers. However, the Committee feels
strongly that, if consolidations and streamlining are to take
place, the Coast Guard itself may be in the best position to
judge which offices and district operations may be reduced.
Others.--For other district operations and support
activities, the Committee has essentially provided either the
budget request, which in many cases was below the fiscal year
1995 funding level, or rolled the funding level back to the
1995 level.
RECRUITING AND TRAINING SUPPORT
The recruiting and training support category has several
subsets, including recruiting, training centers (Yorktown and
Petaluma), the Coast Guard Academy, and professional training
and education. The Committee has provided the full amount
requested, which was $70,943,000, and notes that the Coast
Guard has again requested a fiscal year 1996 funding level
which was below the amount provided in 1995. The Committee has
restored the $1,000,000 cut which the House took out of
graduate school tuition payments. The Committee believes that
the Coast Guard has done a good job in trying to hold costs
down whenever and wherever possible, and though its budget for
professional training and education is sizable, at $26,207,000,
a targeted cut is not necessary at this time.
CENTRALIZED SERVICES AND SUPPORT
The centralized services and support line item includes a
number of individual activities. The Committee has provided
$187,335,000 overall for centralized services and support, a
reduction of $2,391,000 from the requested level (-1.3
percent). The reductions in this activity include a slight
reduction of $19,000 from the telecommunications and
information systems command request; a reduction of $160,000
from the FTS 2000 telecommunications request; and a $325,000
reduction from the headquarters administration line item (a
three-tenths-of-1 percent cut).
Even though the House's staffing positions list is only a
suggestion, the Committee believes that the Commandant should
have full discretion in the number of positions/billets
assigned to each of the offices within headquarters.
ACCOUNTWIDE ADJUSTMENTS
Because of budget constraints, the Committee found it
necessary to impose an accountwide adjustment for Coast Guard
operations. The Committee agrees with the specific
recommendations of the House, which includes the following:
Recreational equipment reduction........................ -$146,000
Nonpay inflation adjustment............................. -5,842,000
Nonoperational travel reduction
-1,831,000
And, the Committee has an undistributed accountwide
adjustment of $329,000. The Committee does not support the
House's observation that the military pay and personnel center
could save $500,000 by contracting out operations. This was
based on testimony early in the year by the Inspector General's
Office, for which the Committee can find no basis, and,
therefore, does not support the House's initiative in this
area.
In assessing the accountwide adjustment, the Committee
directs the Coast Guard to look carefully at whether cost
savings could be achieved on vehicles loaned or leased from the
General Services Administration. The inspector general's audit
of this activity disclosed that 45 percent of the Coast Guard's
leased vehicles did not meet GSA's minimum mileage use
requirements during fiscal year 1993; and that the required
vehicle retention justifications were not maintained or were
not adequate to support the retention of 66 percent of the 279
leased vehicles sampled during the audit; and, required usage
records were not maintained for 59 percent of the 279 vehicles
reviewed. The inspector general estimated that, if the Coast
Guard eliminated GSA-leased vehicles averaging 500 miles or
less monthly at those units with more than one vehicle
assigned, approximately $1,000,000 would be saved each year.
The Committee directs the Coast Guard to review this situation,
and suggests it as a good candidate as the agency makes its
accountwide adjustments.
HOUSE-INITIATED BILL PROVISIONS
Motor vehicle purchase.--The Committee concurs with the
House's inclusion of bill language which includes a limitation
on the purchase of motor vehicles to five, even though the
Coast Guard testified that there were no current plans to
purchase any motor vehicles during fiscal year 1996. This
provision is included to allow the Coast Guard flexibility if
the need arises.
Drug enforcement.--The Committee has stricken the House's
bill language that specifies that no less than $314,200,000 may
be obligated or expended on drug enforcement programs during
fiscal year 1996. The Committee notes that this is the amount
which was included by the Coast Guard in its budget for drug
enforcement activities. However, as important a mission as drug
enforcement is, the Coast Guard conducts many important
missions, and the Committee feels that a minimum restriction as
included by the House could hamper the Coast Guard responding
to emergencies and other needs as they arise. Given the Coast
Guard's increased responsibilities and activities in many
areas, including migrant interdiction, marine safety, marine
environmental protection, and search and rescue operations, the
Committee, without prejudice, has struck the House language.
The Committee feels the Coast Guard has done its best to
estimate the total amount that would be spent on drug law
enforcement, and will expend the resources necessary for this
very important activity.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE READINESS
The Committee on Appropriations Department of Defense bill
includes $300,000,000 for Coast Guard support. These funds are
provided by DOD to enable the Secretary of the Navy to provide
support for the national defense mission of the Coast Guard.
The Coast Guard plays a key role in support of military
missions under the U.S. Atlantic and Southern Commands in
support of drug interdiction missions, refugee and immigration
support, and enforcement and joint military training. The
Committee believes, as does the Defense Subcommittee, that
these costs should and could be addressed through Defense
appropriations. That subcommittee has recommended, and
authorized the Secretary of the Navy to provide, up to
$300,000,000 in fuel, spare parts, munitions, repair services,
and other support activities necessary to maintain the
readiness of the Coast Guard so that it may best participate in
national defense missions. The services the Secretary of the
Navy will make available to the Coast Guard include ship and
aviation fuel, spare parts, munitions, ship stores, commissary
goods, ship and aircraft repair services, ship and aircraft
parts, and other assistance as necessary to ensure the national
defense capabilities and readiness of the Coast Guard.
The Coast Guard is a cost-effective force which is
multimissioned. Its ships, aircraft, shore units, and people
have four primary roles: maritime safety, maritime law
enforcement, marine environmental protection, and national
defense. These roles are complementary and contribute to the
Coast Guard's unique niche within the national security
community. The value of the Coast Guard forces and their
mission experience was clearly evident by their active
participation in Operations Desert Shield/Storm in Iraq, and
more recently, in operations restore/uphold democracy in Haiti.
The Coast Guard is one of the five Armed Forces, and is a full
partner on the joint national security team. To be a credible
partner, the Coast Guard must maintain a high state of
operational readiness. Many parts of the Coast Guard's budget
contain funding requests that, if cut, would severely impair
the Coast Guard's operational readiness and, therefore, its
ability to meet national security commitments.
OTHER
Small boat station/search and rescue.--Besides conducting
direct public service such as search and rescue, fisheries law
enforcement, and boating while intoxicated enforcement, Coast
Guard small boat stations, boats and personnel also perform a
preventive role in their operating areas, similar to the cop on
the beat. Coast Guard presence is a constant public reminder
that encourages safe boating and deters potential violations of
law in the maritime arena. These very real, though intangible,
benefits were not included in the Coast Guard's analysis of
small boat units. The Committee believes that these intangible
benefits, when considered with the direct benefits defined by
the Coast Guard analysis, outweigh the management efficiencies
and budget savings that will result from closing small boat
units. The Committee has, therefore, included a general
provision, section 358, which disallows the closure of any
multimission small boat stations or subunits. Under the
Committee's language, the Commandant may implement management
efficiencies within the overall small boat system, which may
include modifying the operational posture of units.
Marine safety resources.--As part of its budget request for
fiscal year 1996, the Coast Guard proposed to eliminate 21
billets from the marine safety program for a savings of
$685,000. The Committee believes, however, that, given the
extraordinary unmet needs in the marine safety program, the
time is not yet right to downsize the number of trained marine
safety personnel.
The recently-initiated port State control initiative has
placed several additional burdens on most marine safety offices
and their marine inspectors. This initiative calls for such
inspectors to participate in the targeted boardings of all
high-priority vessels. Yet, too often, the limited number of
inspectors and their extensive responsibilities has undermined
their ability to participate in all such boardings. The recent
addition of Panama to the list of substandard flag States
targeted for additional boardings will only exacerbate this
problem. Given these growing challenges, the Committee has
restored $685,000 and 21 billets to the Coast Guard's operating
base. The Committee does not, however, expect these funds to be
used to restore the same 21 billets slated by the Coast Guard
for termination. Rather, the Committee directs that these
billets be strategically deployed in a manner determined by the
Commandant in order to strengthen the port State control
initiative and address other marine safety priorities. The
Committee requests that the Commandant submit a report to the
House and Senate Appropriations Committees by March 1, 1996,
providing a detailed accounting how each of the restored
billets and resources will be used and assigned.
Identification of substandard classification societies.--
The port State control initiative, as mandated by the
Committee, requires the Coast Guard to target its safety
boardings on vessels belonging to substandard owners and
vessels associated with substandard flag States and substandard
classification societies. In April 1994, the Commandant
testified that, while lists of substandard owners and flag
States had already been developed, a list of substandard
classification societies could not be developed until October
1994. As an interim step, the Coast Guard testified that it
would target only those classification societies that were not
in compliance with the guidelines called for under IMO
Resolution A.739(18).
The Committee is greatly disappointed to learn that a new
list of substandard classification societies, rather than being
available in October 1994, may not be available until the late
winter of 1996. The Committee's disappointment is fueled, in
part, by its concern that certain classification societies of
questionable quality are currently enjoying the presumption of
having adequate safety controls solely because they have been
determined to be in compliance with the IMO guidelines.
Recent experience with the Coast Guard's boarding
activities reveals that substandard ships are still,
periodically, being classed by even the most reputable
classification societies. However, within the universe of those
societies that have been determined to be in compliance with
the IMO resolution, certain societies have experienced a
disproportionately and unacceptably high number and frequency
of safety interventions. As such, the Committee requests the
Commandant to redouble his efforts to develop a new list of
substandard classification societies. The Committee further
requests that, upon completion of this list, he submit a report
to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees detailing the
methodology he used in developing this list. This report, which
should be provided no later than April 1, 1996, should include
appendices providing all available and relevant safety data
used to evaluate the adequacy of all major classification
societies.
Vessel traffic systems [VTS].--The Committee concurs with
the House's direction that the Coast Guard should more fully
examine the implementation costs associated with the vessel
traffic service VTS 2000 program. Based on General Accounting
Office reports, the costs of operating the vessel traffic
system would approach approximately $65,000,000 a year, versus
the current cost of almost $20,000,000. In addition, it will
take significant capital resources to install the equipment in
the currently envisioned VTS 2000 program.
In light of the GAO's earlier report on VTS 2000 costs of
$310,000,000 to establish and $65,000,000 to operate, the
Committee emphatically directs the Coast Guard to review its
plans for VTS, including the institution of user fees whereby
users would pay the bill for the service provided. Given the
budget situation, the Committee cannot support taking on new
responsibilities where services are provided free to the users.
The Committee believes it would be wise to study how this
system could be developed through a public sector/private
sector partnership. As each port is different, privatization
may not be the proper model for all the ports in the Coast
Guard's plans. However, given the success of the Los Angeles-
Long Beach system, which is funded on fees based on size of
ships, and is staffed by both civilians and Coast Guard
personnel, it appears that this is an excellent model to study
and possibly apply to the rest of the VTS 2000 ports.
Marine Fire and Safety Association.--The Committee remains
supportive of efforts by the Marine Fire and Safety Association
[MFSA] to provide specialized fire fighting training and
maintain an oilspill response contingency plan for the Columbia
River. The Committee encourages the Secretary to provide
funding for MFSA consistent with the authorization.
Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Trust Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1995.... $330,437,400 $32,500,000 $362,937,400
Budget estimate, 1996... 395,700,000 32,500,000 428,200,000
House allowance......... 342,675,000 32,500,000 375,175,000
Committee recommendation \1\ 370,400,00
0 32,500,000 \1\ 402,900,00
0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $36,100,000 in reprogrammed resources.
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 provides over 48,000
navigational aids--buoys, fixed aids, lighthouses, and radio
navigational stations.
committee recommendation
The following table summarizes the Committee's programmatic
recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year House program Committee
1995 enacted 1996 estimate levelallowance recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessels..................................... $187,900,000 $203,700,000 $191,200,000 \1\ $192,000,00
0
Aircraft.................................... 11,800,000 19,500,000 16,500,000 14,500,000
Other equipment............................. 29,700,000 56,300,000 42,200,000 47,600,000
Shore facilities and aids to navigation..... 89,350,000 99,800,000 82,275,000 \2\ 102,300,000
Personnel and related support............... 44,187,400 48,900,000 43,000,000 46,500,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. 362,937,400 428,200,000 375,175,000 \3\ 402,900,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $14,000,000 in reprogrammed resources.
\2\ Includes $22,100,000 in reprogrammed resources.
\3\ Includes $36,100,000 in reprogrammed resources.
vessels
The Committee recommends $192,000,000 for vessel
acquisition and improvement, of which $14,000,000 is made
available through prior-year reprogrammings. The projected
allocation of these funds is shown in the table below:
VESSELS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Committee
1996 estimate Houseallowance recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acquire vessels and
equipment:
Seagoing buoy tender
[WLB] replacement.. 65,000 65,000 65,000
Coastal buoy tender
[WLM] replacement.. 93,000 93,000 93,000
47-foot motor
lifeboat [MLB]
replacement project 500 500 500
82-foot WPB
capability
replacement........ 4,000 .............. \1\ 2,000
Follow-on for polar
icebreaker
replacement........ 4,300 4,300 \1\ 4,300
Buoy boat
replacement project 8,500 .............. 8,500
Survey and design--
cutters and boats.. 500 500 500
Norwegian crew
search/rescue boat. 2,000 2,000 \1\ 2,000
Self-propelled barge
replacement........ 900 900 \1\ 900
Surface search radar
replacement project 3,500 3,500 \1\ 3,500
Repair, renovate, or
improve existing
vessels and small
boats:
210-foot medium-
endurance cutter
[WMEC], major
maintenance
availability [MMA]. 14,500 14,500 10,500
378-foot shipboard
command and control 1,300 1,300 \1\ 1,300
Configuration
management......... 5,700 5,700 ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total (new program
level)........... 203,700 191,200 \2\ 192,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funded through reprogrammings.
\2\ Includes $14,000,000 in reprogrammed resources.
Point class patrol boat replacement project.--The Committee
has provided $2,000,000 in reprogrammed resources for the Point
class patrol boat replacement project. The amount provided is
$2,000,000 less than the President's request. This project has
been delayed due to the requirement to recompete the contract
for the lead ship. At this point, it appears likely that the
program will carry forward the entire fiscal year 1995
appropriation into either the first or second quarter of fiscal
year 1996. The Committee has reduced the amount provided for
project management costs in fiscal year 1996 to account for
this delay.
Surface search radar replacement project.--The Committee
has provided reprogrammed resources to fully fund the
President's request for the surface search radar replacement
project. However, the Committee is disturbed to learn that the
scope of the program may be undergoing substantial change that
could increase cost risk. The Committee understands that the
financial participation of the Navy in this procurement is now
seriously in doubt. This information is especially disturbing
since the Committee received a report from the Commandant dated
July 14 that cited this project as a joint Navy-Coast Guard
procurement and makes no mention of the risk associated with
the loss of Navy participation. The Committee would appreciate
an informal communication from the Commandant prior to
conference committee deliberations on this bill which discusses
in detail the outlook for Navy participation in this project,
as well as any likely changes in program cost that will result
from the loss of Navy participation in this program.
Medium-endurance cutter major maintenance availability
[MMA].--The Committee has provided $10,500,000 of the
$14,500,000 requested for the major maintenance availability
program for the Coast Guard's fleet of 210-foot medium-
endurance cutters. This vessel rehabilitation program is
conducted at the Coast Guard yard at Curtis Bay, MD. The
Committee finds that, by stretching out the duration of this
program, the Coast Guard can better maintain employment levels
at the Coast Guard yard and potentially avoid the cost of
severance payments to Federal employees at the yard. The
Committee recognizes fully its responsibility to finance the
remaining costs associated with this program in future years.
Tactical data information system [TACDIS].--The Committee
has fully funded the President's request for the installation
of this shipboard command and control system on the Coast
Guard's fleet of high-endurance cutters [WHEC's]. While this
procurement has had a very troubled history, the critical value
of this equipment as a command and control tool during AMIO
operations around Haiti and Cuba cannot be questioned. The
amount provided will be the last increment of funding necessary
to complete this program.
Configuration management.--The Committee has not provided
the $5,700,000 requested for the configuration management
program. The Committee believes that funds provided for this
program in prior years will be sufficient to finance an
adequate number of cutter configuration reviews in fiscal year
1996.
Reprogrammings.--The Committee has utilized reprogrammed
resources to fully fund the President's request for the polar
icebreaker replacement follow-on costs. In combination with the
reprogrammings cited above, a total of $14,100,000 in
reprogrammed resources will be made available from this
subaccount to better enable the Committee to finance the Coast
Guard's critical vessel needs in fiscal year 1996. These funds
will be made available from unobligated balances in the
seagoing buoy tender [WLB] replacement project and the coastal
buoy tender [WLM] replacement project.
In the last 9 months, the Coast Guard's estimate of
unobligated balances to be carried forward into fiscal year
1996 from these two programs has grown from zero to almost
$20,000,000. These balances were principally budgeted for
contract change orders and economic price adjustments. Rather
than being an indication of program difficulties, the fact that
these balances have not been required indicates that the Coast
Guard's acquisition strategy based on performance-based
specifications has, to date, kept program costs under control.
Both the Coast Guard and the contractor are to be commended for
their initial performance in keeping both the WLB and WLM
programs on schedule and within budget. The Committee
recognizes that some amount of these balances may be necessary
as the Coast Guard takes delivery of its first WLM and WLB
hulls in the coming months. As such, the Committee grants the
Commandant the flexibility to move unobligated balances between
these two programs as they are needed in fiscal year 1996. The
Committee expects to be kept informed as to how this
flexibility is utilized through the Commandant's quarterly
acquisition reports.
aircraft
For aircraft procurement, the Committee recommends
$14,500,000. Funds for aircraft acquisitions are distributed as
follows:
AIRCRAFT
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Committee
1996 estimate Houseallowance recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Traffic alert and
collision avoidance
system [TCAS]--phase IV 13,000 10,000 8,000
Global positioning
system installation--
phase VI............... 1,900 1,900 1,900
HH-65 helicopter--
transmission gearbox
upgrade................ 2,500 2,500 2,500
HC-130 sidelooking
airborne radar [SLAR]
upgrade................ 2,100 2,100 2,100
-----------------------------------------------
Total............. 19,500 16,500 14,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Traffic alert and collision avoidance system [TCAS].--The
Committee has provided $8,000,000 for the traffic alert and
collision avoidance system [TCAS], $5,000,000 less than the
President's request. With the successful installation of this
important safety feature in the Coast Guard's fleet of fixed-
wing aircraft, this program now proceeds to the much greater
challenge of integrating this feature into the Coast Guard's
helicopter fleet. To date, there have been no production
installations of TCAS in helicopters. The Coast Guard has not
yet awarded its helicopter integration contract and the
Committee believes that there is likely to be substantial
technical and schedule risk associated with this integration
effort. As such, the Committee has reduced the President's
funding request and will carefully monitor the progress of this
integration effort in the coming months.
Sale of surplus Coast Guard aircraft.--The Committee has
concurred in bill language requested by the administration
allowing funds received from the sale of the Coast Guard's VC-
11A and HU-25 aircraft to be credited to this subaccount. The
Committee commends the Coast Guard for its recent sale of the
VC-11A aircraft and expects to be informed shortly as to how
the receipts of the sale will be utilized. Moreover, the
Committee encourages the Commandant to market aggressively his
fleet of redundant HU-25 Falcon aircraft so that he can better
meet the costs of modernizing the Coast Guard's aviation
infrastructure.
other equipment
The Committee recommends $47,600,000. The following table
displays the project allocation:
OTHER EQUIPMENT
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Committee
1996 estimate Houseallowance recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fleet logistics system.. 3,000 3,000 ..............
Marine information for
safety and law
enforcement [MISLE].... 11,000 11,000 11,000
Global maritime distress/
safety system--phase
III.................... 500 500 500
Differential global
positioning system
[DGPS] transmitter
replacement............ 1,700 .............. 1,700
Vessel traffic services
[VTS] 2000............. 5,000 5,000 2,000
Differential global
positioning system
[DGPS] in 2d District.. 2,400 .............. 2,400
Search and rescue
simulation model
[SARSIM]............... 500 500 500
Supply center computer
replacement [SCCR]..... 1,000 1,000 1,000
Vessel navigation
training simulator..... 1,500 1,500 1,500
Conversion of software
applications........... 11,100 6,100 9,000
Vessel traffic services
equipment replacement
projects............... 3,000 3,000 3,000
Finance Center
information system
replacement............ 2,600 2,600 2,500
Local notice to mariners
automation............. 500 500 500
Communication system
[COMMSYS] 2000......... 11,000 6,000 11,000
Seagoing buoy tender
[WLB] and coastal buoy
tender [WLM] support
facility............... 1,500 1,500 1,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total............. 56,300 42,200 47,600
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fleet logistics system [FLS].--The Committee has not
provided the $3,000,000 requested for the fleet logistics
system [FLS]. The Committee continues to have deep-seated
concerns regarding this program. The program's cost risk,
schedule risk, and technical risk continue to be rated as high.
The Committee questions whether the project should award its
centralized configuration management [CCM] contract in fiscal
year 1996 under such conditions.
Vessel traffic services [VTS] 2000.--The Committee has
provided $2,000,000 of the $5,000,000 requested for the VTS
2000 program. Consistent with this reduced funding allocation,
the Committee directs that the Coast Guard not conduct any site
surveys for new systems in fiscal year 1996. It is not at all
clear that the anticipated baseline for domestic discretionary
spending will allow for the deployment of new VTS 2000 systems
at all ports identified with a positive cost/benefit quotient
in the Coast Guard's port needs study. As such, the Committee
believes the Coast Guard should target available resources on
those ports for which surveys have already been completed.
Conversion of software applications.--The Committee has
provided $9,000,000 of the $11,100,000 requested for the
conversion of software applications. The Committee recognizes
that the Coast Guard is required to convert its numerous
current software applications to be compatible with an open
systems environment. However, the Committee believes that this
small funding reduction can be easily accommodated by
converting fewer applications in fiscal year 1996. This
reduction will not undermine the program over the long run.
Communication system [COMMSYS] 2000.--The Committee takes
strong exception to the recommendation of the House to reduce
funding below the President's request for the communication
system [COMMSYS] 2000 program. This program has already
demonstrated its value in reducing the Coast Guard's personnel
and operating costs by remoting existing communication stations
to consolidated facilities with substantially fewer employees.
The Coast Guard's budget request for operating expenses for
fiscal year 1996 already assumes some personnel savings
associated with this acquisition request. Slowing the progress
of this program will only undermine the Coast Guard's ability
to eliminate unnecessary personnel and operating costs.
Seagoing buoy tender [WLB] and coastal buoy tender [WLM]
support facility.--The Committee has provided $1,000,000 of the
$1,500,000 requested for the WLB and WLM support facility.
Given the delivery schedule for the new buoy tender fleet, the
Committee believes that full funding of this $6,500,000
facility may be premature at this time. Moreover, the Committee
questions whether an existing Coast Guard facility, such as the
Coast Guard yard, might be adequate to meet the needs of this
project.
shore facilities and aids to navigation
The program level recommended is $102,300,000. Within this
amount, $22,100,000 is made available through reprogrammed
resources. The following table displays the project allocation:
SHORE FACILITIES AND AIDS TO NAVIGATION
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Committee
1996 estimate Houseallowance recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shore--General:
Survey and design of
various shore
projects........... 8,000 8,000 6,000
Minor AC&I shore
construction
projects........... 5,000 5,000 4,000
Streamlining
initiatives--unspec
ified.............. 5,000 5,000 ..............
Shore--Air stations:
Streamlining initiative
consolidation.......... 11,000 11,000 \1\ 11,000
Shore--Supply centers/
support centers/yard:
Baltimore, MD--Coast
Guard yard land-based
ship handling facility. 15,100 .............. 7,000
Shore--Personnel support
facilities: Public
family quarters........ 22,700 20,275 \2\ 20,000
Shore--Groups/bases/
stations/MSO's:
Station, Boothbay
Harbor, ME--
renovate/expand.... 2,800 2,800 2,800
Base, San Juan, PR--
reconstruction
phase II........... 3,150 3,150 ..............
Base, South
Portland, ME--
construct station
operations building 2,600 2,600 2,600
Station, Port
Isabel, TX--
reconstruct/expand
waterfront
facilities......... 2,650 2,650 2,650
Station, Portage,
MI--relocate/
replace station
facilities......... 4,200 4,200 4,200
Station, Chetco
River, OR--
construct mooring/
waterfront support
facility........... 2,000 2,000 2,000
Station, Honolulu,
HI--replacement.... 5,000 5,000 5,000
Shore--Streamlining
initiatives--project
execution costs:
Wadsworth, NY--
Activities New
York--construct
group/MSO
headquarters and
vessel traffic
control center..... .............. .............. 9,000
Rosebank, NY--Pier
and station
rehabilitation..... .............. .............. 4,000
Bayonne, NJ--Pier
improvements and
aids to navigation
team [ANT]......... .............. .............. 5,700
Sandy Hook, NJ--
Construct group
engineering
building........... .............. .............. 2,750
Portsmouth, VA--
Integrated support
center
administrative
space.............. .............. .............. 4,000
Boston, MA--
Integrated support
center
rehabilitation..... .............. .............. 2,000
Yorktown, VA--
Reserve training
center--Yeoman
school building
modifications...... .............. .............. 1,100
New London, CT--
Chief petty
officers academy
[CPOA] and
leadership school.. .............. .............. 2,500
Training centers: Coast
Guard Academy, Roland
Hall--renovation....... 5,100 5,100 ..............
Aids to navigation
facilities: Waterways
aids-to-navigation
projects............... 5,500 5,500 4,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total............. 99,800 82,275 \3\ 102,300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funded through reprogrammings.
\2\ Funded through $11,100,000 in reprogrammed resources and $8,900,000
in new budget authority.
\3\ Includes $22,100,000 in reprogrammed resources.
Streamlining initiatives.--Over the last several months,
the Coast Guard has had under development, a broad-based
streamlining plan intended to substantially reduce the Coast
Guard's personnel and operating costs, while maintaining the
current level of services to the public. This initiative will
necessitate considerable investment in reengineering the Coast
Guard's existing physical plant so that the expected savings in
operating costs can be realized.
While the entire streamlining plan has not yet been
finalized, the Committee has worked with the Coast Guard to
identify several shore facility projects that can be initiated
in fiscal year 1996 to generate operational cost savings in the
near term. This was done, in part, out of recognition that the
current budget environment will require the Coast Guard to move
out on its streamlining plan more expeditiously than originally
planned in order to maintain services to the public at reduced
funding levels.
It must be noted, however, that in a number of instances,
certain shore facility projects that were included in the
budget request were required to be reduced, deferred, or
canceled in order that funding could be provided to those
streamlining projects that would yield near-term operational
savings. Such is the case for the Committee's reduced funding
recommendations for shore survey and design projects, the Coast
Guard yard land-based ship handling facility, minor AC&I
projects, public family quarters, base San Juan reconstruction,
and ATON waterways projects.
In total, the Committee has provided $42,050,000 for
projects associated with Coast Guard streamlining activities as
follows:
Shore facility funding for streamlining activities
Wadsworth, NY--Activities New York--construct group/MSO
headquarters and vessel traffic control center............$9,000,000
Rosebank, NY--Pier and station rehabilitation................. 4,000,000
Bayonne, NJ--Pier improvements and aids to navigation team
[ANT]..................................................... 5,700,000
Sandy Hook, NJ--Construct group engineering building.......... 2,750,000
Portsmouth, VA--Integrated support center administrative space 4,000,000
Boston, MA--Integrated support center rehabilitation.......... 2,000,000
Yorktown, VA--Reserve training center--Yeoman school building
modifications............................................. 1,100,000
Atlantic City, NJ--Construct hangar for consolidated air
stations..................................................11,000,000
New London, CT--Chief petty officers academy [CPOA] and
leadership school......................................... 2,500,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total...................................................42,050,000
The Committee greatly prefers this procedure of providing
funding to well-justified, defined projects than the funding
approach taken by the House Committee. Under the House's
recommendation, the Commandant is provided with blanket
reprogramming authority of up to $50,000,000 to finance these
projects. The Committee believes that, under the House's
approach, the Congress will not have adequate opportunity to
review and approve individual aspects of the Coast Guard's
streamlining plan. The Committee recognizes that additional
funds may be required in fiscal year 1996 to finance all the
streamlining activities that the Coast Guard may want to
initiate in fiscal year 1996. The Committee will give full
consideration to such reprogramming requests throughout the
year on a case-by-case basis.
Coast Guard yard land-based ship handling facility.--The
Committee takes great exception to the recommendation of the
House to provide no funding for this request. The current ship
handling capability at the Coast Guard yard is clearly
inadequate and is in need of modernization. The Committee, in
consultation with the Coast Guard, has determined that this
project can be executed over several phases. The first phase
will require an appropriation of $7,000,000 which the Committee
has fully funded. This funding will be used for the purchase of
lift equipment and associated waterfront work. The Committee
recognizes that additional funding will be required in fiscal
year 1997 to finance more land-based work associated with this
project. Providing the necessary funding in two phases will not
delay the completion date for this project.
Personnel support facilities--public family quarters.--As
stated above, funding for this activity was necessarily
reduced. The Committee recommendation assumes that phase II of
the housing project at Cape Hatteras, NC, will be deferred.
Roland Hall renovation.--The Committee has not funded the
$5,100,000 requested for the renovation of the Roland Hall
gymnasium building at the Coast Guard Academy in New London,
CT. While the Committee does not belittle the importance of the
Academy's critical training function, the current budgetary
environment does not allow for the financing of new or
renovated athletic facilities. Given the overwhelming unmet
need to rehabilitate facilities that are essential to the Coast
Guard's critical operational missions, the Committee cannot
support funding for gymnasium renovations at this time.
Reprogrammings.--The Committee has utilized reprogrammed
resources to fully finance the $11,000,000 requested for the
consolidation of two existing air stations and $11,100,000 of
the $20,000,000 provided for public family quarters. These
funds are to be made available from the following sources:
Fiscal year:
1994: Cape May barracks savings..................... $1,500,000
1995:
Base San Juan reconstruction.................... 10,750,000
Overseas loran closures......................... 6,000,000
Station Ocracoke housing........................ 2,100,000
Various: General shore project savings.............. 1,750,000
PERSONNEL AND RELATED SUPPORT
The program level recommended is $46,500,000. Within the
amount provided, $500,000 shall be for core acquisition costs.
The House provided a total of $43,000,000, of which $500,000
was for core acquisition costs. The House capped positions at
717, which is the same level as that provided in fiscal year
1995.
Environmental Compliance and Restoration
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $23,497,300
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 25,000,000
House allowance......................................... 21,000,000
Committee recommendation
21,000,000
The Committee recommends funding of $21,000,000 to continue
the environmental restoration and compliance-related actions
throughout the Coast Guard.
These fiscal year 1996 funds will be used 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.
The Committee is aware that lead-acid batteries have been
dumped by the U.S. Coast Guard in Lake Memphremagog and Lake
Champlain, VT. EPA guidelines and title 24, section 2201 of
Vermont Statutes prohibit such dumping of lead-acid batteries.
These batteries contain lead and mercury that can pose a threat
to water quality and to the fish and people that ingest it.
Already Lake Champlain contains levels of mercury high enough
to require health warnings for pregnant women, children, and
the elderly who eat fish from the lake.
The Committee requests the U.S. Coast Guard to prepare a
report to the Committee no later than 30 days after passage of
this act that details past incidents of battery dumping in Lake
Memphremagog, Lake Champlain, and other navigable waters of
Vermont. This report should include the number of batteries
dumped, their lead and mercury content, and the location and
date of their dumping. The report should also include a
description of the Coast Guard's current practice of battery
disposal, the cleanup planned for existing dump sites in
Vermont, and an assessment of the health risk posed by these
batteries. In determining the health risk, the Coast Guard will
take into consideration varying conditions that could affect
the release of pollutants such as freezing conditions.
Port Safety Development
Appropriations, 1995....................................................
Budget estimate, 1996...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation
$15,000,000
The Committee has included funding to support
infrastructure-related development at the Port of Portland, OR,
including reduction of debt from prior infrastructure
development guaranteed by local taxpayers. Recent legislation
allows Alaska North Slope oil to be exported rather than be
used exclusively for domestic purposes. This change in Federal
policy jeopardizes substantial investments made by the port in
response to anticipated increases in demand. Because of
increased repair work and dockings, substantial sums were
borrowed to make infrastructure improvements necessary to
satisfy capacity, safety, and environmental issues. Recent
congressional action jeopardizes the port's expected cash flow
and impairs its ability to make orderly payments on debt
retirement. This appropriation will allow the port to retire
some of the debt.
Alteration of Bridges
Appropriations, 1995....................................................
Budget estimate, 1996................................... $2,000,000
House allowance......................................... 16,000,000
Committee recommendation
2,000,000
The ``Alteration of bridges'' appropriation provides funds
for the Coast Guard's share of the cost of altering or removing
bridges obstructive to navigation. Under the provisions of the
Truman-Hobbs 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.
Beginning in 1995, the administration decided that the
Coast Guard could no longer fund the alteration of highway
bridges determined to be unreasonable obstructions to
navigation. The Federal share of such projects would be
financed from bridge program funds of the Federal Highway
Administration [FHWA], under the continuing direction of the
Coast Guard.
Funding of $2,000,000 was requested by the administration
to continue work on the Burlington Northern Railroad bridge
over the Mississippi River at Burlington, IA. According to the
administration's budget justification, FHWA discretionary
bridge funds will continue the alteration of highway bridges at
Brunswick, GA; Chelsea, MA; the Port of New Orleans, LA; and,
to begin work in Limehouse, SC.
The House provides funding for the Burlington, IA, bridge
as requested. The House, however, provides the following
unrequested funds:
New Orleans, LA, Florida Avenue, railroad/highway bridge......$2,000,000
Brunswick, GA, Sidney Lanier Highway Bridge................... 8,000,000
Boston, MA, Chelsea Street Highway Bridge..................... 2,000,000
St. John's, SC, Limehouse Highway Bridge
2,000,000
Retired Pay
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $562,585,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 582,022,000
House allowance......................................... 582,022,000
Committee recommendation
582,022,000
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), and 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
29,450 in fiscal year 1996, as compared with an estimated
28,493 in fiscal year 1995 and 27,778 in fiscal year 1994.
The bill includes $582,022,000 for retired pay, which is
the same as the House allowance and the budget request.
Reserve Training
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $64,976,725
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 64,859,000
House allowance......................................... 61,859,000
Committee recommendation
62,000,000
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 Committee has provided $62,000,000 for Reserve
training. The amount provided is $2,859,000 less than the
President's request. The amount provided will support a
Selected Reserve Force of 8,000 members, the same level as
fiscal year 1995.
The Coast Guard is provided Reserve training funding as
follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's Committee
Functional program element request (8000 recommendation
SELRES) (8000 SELRES)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drill pay and benefits.................. $25,343,000 24,600,000
Full-time support personnel............. 20,254,000 19,400,000
Annual training program................. 10,361,000 9,700,000
District administration/training........ 4,241,000 4,050,000
Recruiting.............................. 1,783,000 1,500,000
O/M support to training facilities...... 1,648,000 1,575,000
Headquarters administration............. 1,229,000 1,175,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. 64,859,000 62,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Trust Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1995.... $17,156,000 $3,150,000 $20,306,400
Budget estimate, 1996... 19,350,000 3,150,000 22,500,000
House allowance......... 15,350,000 3,150,000 18,500,000
Committee recommendation 16,850,000 3,150,000 20,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 bill includes $20,000,000 for research, development,
test, and evaluation, which is $2,500,000 below the budget
request and $1,500,000 above the House allowance.
The Committee recommendation for funding distribution is as
follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Fiscal year 1996 Houseallowance Committee
1995 estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget data:
Search and rescue............................... $860,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000
Aids to navigation.............................. 1,325,000 1,950,000 1,250,000 1,325,000
Marine safety................................... 1,415,000 3,425,000 1,650,000 2,000,000
Marine environmental protection................. 1,300,000 1,075,000 725,000 1,075,000
Enforcement of laws and treaties................ 600,000 725,000 725,000 725,000
Mission capabilities assessment................. 2,020,000 1,795,000 1,706,000 1,780,000
Multimission/administrative support............. 12,786,400 13,030,000 11,944,000 12,595,000
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 20,306,400 22,500,000 18,500,000 20,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boat Safety
(aquatic resources trust fund)
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $25,000,000
Budget estimate, 1996 \1\...............................................
House allowance......................................... 20,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................
\1\ The President's budget proposed, contingent on enactment of
legislation, that $30,000,000 be available as a direct (mandatory)
program and no discretionary funds.
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 President's
budget requests no discretionary funding in 1996.
The President's request proposed to provide all funding for
the State boating safety grant program by increasing from
$10,000,000 to $30,000,000 the amount of mandatory funding from
the ``Sport fish restoration'' account as authorized under the
Clean Vessel Act of 1992 (title V of the Oceans Act of 1992).
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Summary of Fiscal Year 1996 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 1996 amounts to $7,846,263,000 including a $1,250,000,000
obligation limitation on the use of contract authority for the
Airport Grants Program. The following table summarizes the
Committee's recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Program Fiscal year 1996 budget House Committee
1995 enacted estimate allowance recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations..................................... \1\ 4,582,522 4,704,000 4,600,000 4,550,000
Facilities and equipment....................... \2\ 2,087,489 \3\ 1,917,847 2,000,000 1,890,377
Rescission................................. -35,000 ............... -60,000 -70,000
Research, engineering, and development......... 259,192 267,661 143,000 215,886
Grants-in-aid for airports..................... \4\ 1,450,000 \5\ (218,028) 1,600,000 1,250,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................... 8,344,203 7,107,536 8,283,000 7,836,263
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes reductions pursuant to sections 330 and 331 of Public Law 103-331 and amounts transferred to OST,
salaries and expenses for civil rights activities.
\2\ Excludes $55,000,000 reduction of unobligated balances for procurement and procurement-related expenses
canceled pursuant to section 323 of Public Law 103-331.
\3\ Includes budget amendment of $10,000,000 for advanced security equipment.
\4\ Limitation on obligations.
\5\ Funding for existing airport grant letters of intent included under Unified Transportation Infrastructure
Investment Program within the line item prior commitments.
Operations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Trust Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1995. $2,132,272,300 $2,450,250,000 $4,582,522,300
Budget estimate, 1996 2,094,877,000 2,609,123,000 4,704,000,000
House allowance...... 2,728,500,000 1,871,500,000 4,600,000,000
Committee
recommendation...... 2,685,000,000 1,865,000,000 4,550,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, airports, medical and engineering and development
programs.
The bill includes a total of $4,550,000,000 for the
operations activities of the Federal Aviation Administration,
of which $1,865,000,000 shall be derived from the Airport and
Airway Trust Fund. The account total is $32,522,300 more than
the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1995.
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 activities of the operations accounts comprise 12 main
areas:
Operation of air traffic control system.--The operation of
a national system of air traffic management in the United
States, its territories, and its possessions on a 24-hour
basis.
NAS logistics support.--Procurement, contracting, and
materiel management programs; administrative communications;
supply; and other logistics support.
Maintenance of air traffic control system.--The direction
and engineering services related to the maintenance,
improvement, and modification of facilities and equipment in
the traffic control system; and technical operation and
maintenance of a national network of air navigation aids and
traffic control facilities.
Leased telecommunications services.--Finances the
noncapital costs of FAA's operational and administrative
telecommunications systems.
Aviation regulation and certifications.--The promotion of
flight safety of civil aircraft by assuring the airworthiness
of aircraft; the competence of pilots, aviators, and aviator
technicians; the adequacy of flight procedures and air
operations; and the evaluation of inflight facility performance
for compliance with prescribed standards.
Aviation standards.--Includes the airmen and aircraft
registry, aviation medicine, and the care and maintenance of
FAA's aircraft fleet.
Aviation security.--Provides for the overall planning,
direction, management, evaluation, and enforcement of civil
aviation security; supports efforts covering the investigation
and interdiction of illegal drugs and the assessment of foreign
airports.
NAS design and management.--Provides technical and
administrative program management for the NAS plan; and the
planning, direction, and evaluation of the research,
engineering, and development program (excluding aviation
medicine), direct project costs of which are financed under the
research, engineering, and development appropriation.
Administration of airports.--Provides for the
administration of airport grants and the safety inspection and
certification of the Nation's airports.
Human resources management.--Administration of employee
recruitment, development, compensation, training, and labor-
management relations programs.
Executive direction and management.--Funds the
administrative functions that establish policy and direct and
develop programs which provide for the following administrative
services: policy and plans, accounting, budget, civil rights,
international aviation, data systems; public affairs;
information technology; executive directors; and legal counsel.
This is a new activity, combining two previously separate,
administrative activities--headquarters administration and the
direction staff and supporting services. This consolidation
will streamline operations, save resources, and provide FAA
management with greater flexibility.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendation in comparison to the budget estimate and House
allowance:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
1995 program 1996 budget Houseallowance Committee
level \1\ estimate recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operation of air traffic control system........ 2,200,319 2,228,634 2,220,324 2,200,324
NAS logistics support.......................... 175,665 185,158 186,058 180,665
Maintenance of air traffic control system...... 842,331 868,297 866,197 864,695
Leased telecommunications services............. 316,793 328,423 321,743 326,345
Aviation regulation and certification.......... 361,119 399,711 383,950 390,450
Aviation standards............................. 108,751 111,395 108,751 108,751
Aviation security.............................. 63,933 65,769 64,849 65,000
NAS design and management...................... 54,078 53,277 45,000 53,000
Administration of airports..................... 39,299 42,173 41,530 41,500
Commercial space transportation................ .............. 6,541 5,770 5,770
Human resource management...................... 229,964 231,947 200,005 208,500
Executive direction and management............. 190,270 189,216 175,000 180,000
Accountwide adjustments........................ .............. .............. -19,177 -65,000
Offsetting receipts............................ .............. .............. .............. -10,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................... 4,582,522 4,710,541 4,600,000 4,550,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $916,000 carryover from prior years.
operation of air traffic control system
The Committee recommends a total of $2,200,324,000 for the
operation of the national air traffic control and flight
service system. This is $28,310,000 less than the budget
estimate and the same as the fiscal year 1995 level.
Over the next decade, the Committee expects to see the
billions of dollars of new technology being developed,
procured, and implemented under the ``Facilities and
equipment'' account--computers, communications equipment, and
information analysis capability--reflected in a trend toward
more productive work forces and, therefore, lower operations
budget estimates.
The major activities under operation of air traffic control
system include:
national airspace system logistics support
The Committee notes shortfalls in funding in the logistics
activity during earlier years due to the delay of new systems
coming on-line. However, in accordance with information
provided by FAA, the Committee recommends a more modest
increase of $5,000,000 for this activity over the 1995 program
level. This increase would bring the total recommended for this
budget activity to $180,665,000.
maintenance of air traffic control system
The Committee recommends $864,695,000 and 9,302 FTE's for
this budget activity. The Committee has reduced the $3,602,000
associated with undefined inflationary increases.
leased telecommunication services
The Committee recommends $326,345,000 for this budget
activity. The Committee does not agree with the House
recommendation to reduce funding for leased communications
activities. Because of delays in developing new communications
systems and reductions in funding for others, the Committee
recommends restoration of $4,602,000 for FAA's leased
telecommunication services. The Committee expects that, in
general, costs for leased telecommunication services will
decline in future years when new and more advanced technology
is in place.
aviation regulation and certification
The Committee recommends $390,450,000 and 4,600 full-time
permanent positions for this activity. The Committee disagrees
with the House's recommendation for eliminating funding for the
Omega navigation system and has restored $6,500,000 for FAA to
assume operation of the system which the Coast Guard is
dropping. The Committee expects that Federal funding for Omega
will soon be eliminated and supported through user fees.
aviation standards
The Committee agrees with the House's recommendation for
aviation standards, which is $108,751,000, the same as the
fiscal year 1995 level.
civil aviation security
The Committee recommends $65,000,000 and 790 FTE's for this
budget activity.
nas design and management
The Committee recommends $53,000,000 and 495 FTE's for this
budget activity, which is actually a 2-percent reduction from
the fiscal year 1995 enacted level.
Out of the funds provided, the Committee expects FAA to
continue its contribution for firefighting and emergency
services at the Atlantic City International Airport, either
alone or in conjunction with the New Jersey Air National Guard.
administration of airports
The Committee concurs with the House reduction and
recommends $41,500,000 and 495 FTE's for this activity.
The Committee agrees with the House's including 20 new
positions for airport inspection and three new positions for
management improvements. The Committee, however, has only
included five new positions for compliance.
COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION
A budget amendment proposed transfer of funding for this
activity from the Office of the Secretary. This activity
finances regulatory activities, research and development, and
studies needed to carry out the Secretary's responsibilities as
defined in Executive Order 12465 to encourage, facilitate, and
promote commercial space launches by the U.S. private sector
and to license and regulate commercial launches, launch site
operations, and certain payloads under the Commercial Space
Launch Act (Public Law 98-575).
The Committee concurs with the House allowance of
$5,770,000 and 32 FTE's for this activity
human resources management
The Committee recommends $208,500,000 and 1,170 FTE's for
this budget activity. The Committee has not included
unrequested funds for the Mid-American Aviation Resource
Consortium.
executive direction and management
The Committee recommends $180,000,000 and 1,734 FTE's for
this budget activity, a reduction of $9,216,000 from the
requested amount. The Committee has made this reduction due to
budget constraints.
accountwide adjustments
The Committee generally agrees with the thrust of the
House's approach making accountwide adjustments in order to
bring the overall ``FAA operations budget'' account within the
budget constraints faced by that Committee and this Committee
in putting together a fiscal year 1996 bill. However, the
Committee does not agree with the recommendation to terminate
funding for the Society of Automotive Engineers. This small
research grant of $105,000 is well spent.
The SAE is a major source of performance standards which
are used by the FAA for certification requirements for aircraft
components. SAE provides the technical organization and
expertise necessary to develop and maintain these standards at
the request of FAA. The organization has been developing
standards and recommending practices to FAA and the aviation
industry since 1947.
The Committee does agree with the House regarding holding
the permanent change of station funding to the fiscal year 1995
level. FAA has appealed that an increase in this line item is
necessary to meet minimal permanent change of station
requirements. However, the Committee is concerned about the
administration of the permanent change of station program, and
finds it hard to believe, as reported in newspaper articles,
that FAA reported on June 14 that $2,500,000 was set aside to
simply cover personal relocation costs for employees who
transferred from Stapleton Airport to Denver International.
These airports are approximately 17 miles apart from each other
and are connected by a modern, four-lane divided highway. The
Committee does not have information regarding the number of
controllers who used the benefit, or the approximate cost of
each move, but finds it very difficult to defend a cost of
$2,500,000 for a movement of employees 17 miles.
Operational differential pay.--United States Code provides
various types of premium pay for air traffic controllers. A
major cost for the FAA, approximately $90,000,000, is
associated with the 5-percent operational differential, which
is known as the air traffic controllers strike pay replacement.
These funds were originally intended to rehire air traffic
controllers immediately following the 1981 PATCO strike as an
incentive to attract new employees. Fourteen years later, this
pay differential is included in the base of FAA, and no longer
serves as an incentive, a differential, or a promotion to
attract new controllers.
The Committee has seen in the controller pay area many
programs originally started as temporary programs become
instituted in the pay baseline, such as this pay differential,
and the hard-to-staff pay demonstration program, which was also
extended.
Air traffic controllers pay has several other operational
differentials in existence, including a 1.6-percent premium pay
for controllers at centers and terminals who are certified as
proficient to perform duties including the separation and
control of aircraft, even though not required to be so
certified as a condition of employment.
There is also a 10-percent premium pay to controllers who
are providing on the job training to another controller while
the trainee is directly involved in the operation and control
of air traffic. And there is a 25-percent premium pay to a
controller or flight service station specialist required by his
supervisor to work through the fourth through sixth hour of a
regular 8-hour day without a 30-minute meal break.
There are reasons for a number of these pay differentials,
and in many cases they serve a worthwhile purpose or are a
protection of employees rights. But given the budget
constraints this Committee faces, it is incumbent upon the FAA
to get a better handle on its administrative and pay costs,
including differentials that may be outdated and unnecessary as
we move toward a more independent operation. Differentials are
in addition to overtime pay, night differentials, holiday pay,
Sunday pay, locality pay, and the hard-to-staff pay, all of
which are part of the personnel, benefits, and computation
factor.
This is not intended as criticism of controllers. In fact,
the job they perform is outstanding, given the conditions under
which they have to work. Outmoded equipment, equipment failure,
and overcrowded workspace are just some of the conditions that
have to be endured. It is contingent upon the FAA and the
controllers to work together to alleviate the staff shortages
that exist at some stations and the equally inefficient surplus
of controllers at other facilities. Agreed-upon staffing
standards, implemented through a rational change of station
process, would help.
All told, the Committee has included accountwide
adjustments of $65,000,000, of which approximately $45,000,000
is attributable to a 50-percent reduction in the operational
pay differential. The sum of $5,000,000 is reduced to hold the
inflation nonpay adjustment of the operations account to a 1.5-
percent increase above the fiscal year 1995 level, and through
expected savings on the disposition and/or use of
administrative aircraft and leased and purchased GSA vehicles.
other recommendations and issues
Offsetting collections.--The Committee has included bill
language within the FAA operations account to allow the agency
to collect up to $10,000,000 in offsetting collections, which
would be used to offset the proposed budget cuts. Collections
would be deposited into the ``FAA operations'' account for use
by the agency without further appropriation.
The Committee believes that there are numerous areas for
new or expanded user fees within the FAA. Imposition of fees in
some or all of the following areas: Standards, regulation and
certification, and security, should be implemented to allow FAA
to at least cover the full cost of its activities.
Aviation standards.--There are approximately 270,000 airmen
certification examinations, and based on the information
provided by the agency, the current fees for conducting these
examinations do not cover the full costs.
There are also approximately 250,000 aircraft registration
examinations conducted where the current fees do not cover the
full costs of the examinations. In addition, there are
approximately 495,000 airmen medical certificates processed by
FAA, and the Committee strongly believes that all such
certificate and examination fees should cover the costs for
administering them.
Aviation regulation and certification.--In the aviation
regulation and certification area, once again the fees do not
recover the full costs. There are approximately 380,000 airman
and operator certificates in existence, and the fees collected
do not cover the full cost for administering the program. In
addition, there are approximately 8,000 new aircraft and/or
parts or avionics certificated by the agency. The current fees
for providing this service do not recover the full cost. There
are in existence 3,500 airworthiness certificates which the
administration does not charge the full cost for administering.
Approximately 400,000 inspections are conducted in the aviation
regulation and certification area, and it is not clear to the
Committee that the FAA recovers the cost of the program.
Aviation security.--The Committee is aware that the FAA
does not fully cover the cost for administering the security
program. There are over 11,000 domestic air carrier and 3,000
foreign carrier inspections at U.S. airports conducted
annually. There are over 870 foreign airport/foreign carrier
inspections conducted by FAA's foreign stations.
There are nearly 4,500 hazardous materials inspections
conducted; and, in addition, the agency conducts about 11,000
DUI/DWI pilot investigations for which no fees are assessed.
In addition, the Committee believes that FAA should look at
the costs involved with administering the air tariff data base,
and if warranted, prescribe a schedule of fees to cover the
costs of carrying out the air tariff data base, which obtains
and processes tariffs showing the prices of foreign air
transportation.
Given the number of examinations, inspections,
certifications, and investigations conducted by the agency, the
Committee believes that the agency should be able to recover
the $10,000,000 which was allowed in the bill language.
Diamond Head FAA combined center radar approach control
[CENRAP] relocation.--In fiscal year 1994, Congress instructed
the FAA to fund the relocation of its facility out of Diamond
Head crater. In fiscal year 1995, Congress instructed the FAA
to complete the site acquisition for this relocation. There has
been no progress toward fulfilling these mandates. Accordingly,
this Committee directs the FAA to report within 3 months what
specific steps it will take to acquire a new site for this
facility and complete its relocation.
Installation of next generation weather radar [Nexrad].--In
fiscal year 1993, this Committee directed the FAA to install
Nexrad equipment originally requested for DOD facilities that
are closed or scheduled for immediate closure to cover the
southern flank of the Island of Hawaii, and to expedite the
deployment of the original three Nexrad's for the Hawaiian
Islands. The Committee is disappointed to learn that, to date,
only two of the four Nexrad's designated for Hawaii have been
installed and that the FAA has no intention of installing the
fourth Nexrad designated for the southern flank of the Island
of Hawaii. The blatant disregard by the FAA of this
congressional mandate is unacceptable. Accordingly, this
Committee directs the FAA to report within 3 months what
specific steps it will take to deploy the two remaining
Nexrad's designated for the State of Hawaii.
Martinsburg Airport surveillance radar installation.--The
Committee is disturbed by the delays experienced in the
installation of a new airport surveillance radar [ASR-9] at
Martinsburg, WV. Schedules supplied to the Committee indicate
that this critical equipment enhancement may not be completed
until a full 7 years following the initiation of funding for
the project. The Committee finds these delays to be
unacceptable and requests the Administrator to redouble his
efforts to ensure the timely completion of this project at the
earliest possible opportunity.
Loran-C.--The Committee has previously indicated that FAA
should take full advantage of the compatibility of loran with
GPS, and believes that loran can be used as a cost-effective
alternative system to GPS until satellite technology is
available as a sole means of safe and efficient navigation.
Total system infrastructure operations and maintenance costs
are about $17,000,000 annually. The technology is established,
operationally proven, reliable, and cost effective. In view of
the favorable benefits versus costs associated with loran and
because of the enhancement it provides to user safety, the
Committee concurs with the House report language which calls
for a plan that addresses future funding for loran in
cooperation with other Federal entities both within and outside
of DOT. Given advances in GPS, the Committee expects decreased
funding in future years for this navigation system. The
Committee does not support expedited implementation of the
automatic blink system, pending receipt of the requested
funding plan. Given the budget outlook for the future, FAA
should address its role with less resources.
Aeronautical charts.--The Committee understands that the
FAA is currently exploring the possibility of assuming
responsibility from NOAA for producing and distributing
aeronautical charts. The Committee further understands that
NOAA is amenable to such an arrangement and is involved in the
discussions. We encourage these discussions, and look forward
to working with FAA and NOAA to develop a final proposal. Based
on preliminary data, the Committee is concerned that the total
NOAA costs for the program run to approximately $38,000,000,
which includes: $16,000,000 for FAA-related reimbursements;
$8,100,000 for Defense Mapping Agency related needs; $2,000,000
of retained revenues; and $11,700,000 in appropriated funds to
cover nonreimbursed costs.
Federal surplus personal property for public airport
purposes.--The Committee directs the FAA to continue its
administration of the Federal Surplus Personal Property
Program. The Committee believes that this program is of
particular importance to smaller airports, in that it reduces
equipment acquisition costs associated with federally mandated
programs. The Committee urges the FAA to work with the General
Services Administration to ensure that airports are receiving
the highest priority available to Federal grant recipients; and
work with industry to ensure that the property is distributed
in the most efficient and effective manner possible.
Contract tower program.--In recent years, the Committee has
provided resources to expand and streamline the level I
contract tower program because of the substantial budgetary
savings that can result for the Federal Government and users.
The Committee has found that air traffic services at these
facilities are safe and efficient and there is also the same
positive effect on airport growth as at FAA-staffed facilities.
In our current austere budgetary situation, it is important to
continue support steps to assure that the program remains cost
effective.
The Committee is concerned that the current approach to
wage determinations at contract tower facilities may
significantly increase the cost of the program. Because an
important objective is to contain expenses and ensure the
ongoing success of the program, the Committee believes
additional action is warranted. Therefore, the Secretary of
Transportation, in cooperation with the Secretary of Labor, is
directed to initiate any action necessary to discontinue
prospective or retroactive wage determinations for professional
employees at all level I contract tower locations where there
are five or fewer employees, as provided for in the Service
Contract Act of 1965.
Cape Girardeau, MO.--It is the Committee's understanding
that the Cape Girardeau location is being operated by the city
at a cost that is 30 percent less than is typical for many
other facilities included in the contract tower program, and
can be used as a model for operating such facilities at low
cost to the Federal Government.
The Committee understands that this facility should have a
benefit/cost ratio exceeding 1.0 in the near future. Moreover,
this facility has been utilized as an emergency transportation
center for hundreds of flood disaster relief aircraft in recent
years as a staging point for Coast Guard and other military
emergency operations. Also, as the site for emergency
earthquake relief training exercises, as the designated airport
center of operations in the event of earthquake activity on the
new madrid fault. The Committee directs FAA to review the
benefit/cost ratio of this facility and to continue funding of
the facility during this review.
Controller training.--For many years, the FAA has trained
air traffic controllers at its largest facilities using an
outside contractor at what the Committee believes was a
substantial cost savings. Last year, it recompeted this
contract and signed a new, 7-year contract. However, the FAA is
only utilizing the contract at about 40 percent of its
authorized ceiling. The Committee believes that the FAA should
make maximum use of the contract in order to provide
proficiency training for its current controller work force and
to expedite training of new controllers. The Committee does not
support bringing this training in-house. Controllers,
especially highly qualified senior ones, are needed for the
safe and efficient operation of the ATC system. Removing them
from operating duties for long periods of time to conduct
training or other staff work is an inefficient use of their
time and expertise. This approach is also an unwise use of
scarce resources when a more cost-effective method is
available.
New York Air Route Traffic Control Center outages.--This
past June, the FAA released a preliminary report regarding
three power outages which occurred at the New York Air Traffic
Control Center between April 6 and May 25, 1995. The Committee
encourages the FAA to aggressively pursue solutions to problems
that were discovered as a result of the examination. The
Committee believes that the FAA's examination should not only
focus on the causes of past power outages, but should also
identify and address potential problems that could cause future
outages. In addition, the FAA should apply the information
gained during this investigation to other control centers
throughout the air traffic control system, in order to prevent
similar outages from occurring in other parts of the country.
Wind shear protection for New York City's airports.--In
order to resolve longstanding problems regarding siting of
terminal doppler weather radars serving Kennedy International
Airport and LaGuardia Airport, the conference report on the
fiscal year 1995 Transportation appropriations bill directed
the FAA to site a terminal doppler weather radar [TDWR] at an
appropriate location and to install a low-level wind shear
alert system [LLWAS] at LaGuardia Airport. The conferees also
had approved FAA's decision not to site the radar at either
North Bellmore or Roslyn, NY.
The Committee is extremely concerned that the FAA has made
no progress on siting either the TDWR or the LLWAS. Therefore,
in order to enhance aviation safety in the New York metro area,
the Committee directs the FAA to complete the site selection
process and to begin any environmental review process that may
be required for the TDWR installation, and to install the LLWAS
at LaGuardia Airport. The Committee expects the FAA to provide
monthly progress reports on its actions to follow these
directions.
Ogden-Hinckley Municipal Airport.--Ogden-Hinckley serves as
the primary reliever to Salt Lake International Airport. Ogden-
Hinckley does not have the security capability to handle
passengers from these diverts. The needed capability to handle
diverts is further heightened by the expected air travel needs
associated with the 2000 Winter Olympics.
The Committee, in the Senate report accompanying the fiscal
year 1993 Transportation appropriations bill, directed the FAA
to give priority consideration to the grant requests for
upgrade or replacement of terminal facilities at Ogden-Hinckley
Municipal Airport. Subsequent to passage of the bill, the FAA
opined that it had no authority, despite this Committee's
direction, to allocate funds to Ogden-Hinckley because of its
status as a reliever.
The FAA has now recognized that Ogden-Hinckley, as a
reliever, is eligible to receive terminal improvement funds. In
order to reinstate the priority status given by this Committee
in the 102d Congress to Ogden-Hinckley's grant application, the
Committee again directs the FAA to give priority consideration
to the grant requests for upgrade or replacement of terminal
facilities to meet Federal security, Americans with
Disabilities Act, seismic and other requirements.
FAA valuation of airport land donated for AIP grants.--The
Committee directs the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration to reevaluate the agency's method of valuing
privately owned reliever airport land that's donated to the
local match of an Airport Improvement Program grant. FAA's
guidance should provide for current market value for airport
land (privately sponsored) that is donated to meet the
airport's local match for an AIP grant. FAA presently allows
land donations to attain the local AIP match, but the land is
valued at date-of-acquisition value.
The Committee expects that this revision would mandate FAA
compliance with Office of Management and Budget regulations
governing Federal grant programs. The text addressing matching
of Federal funds allows market value for donated land (49 CFR
18.24(f)).
This change in FAA's land valuation method would also
conform to the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization
Act of 1994 conference report language (Report 103-677), which
requested FAA to reconsider its date-of-acquisition valuation
of donated land in view of the inequity of date-of-acquisition
valued land imposed on privately owned, public-use airports.
Current market value land valuations should be allowed only
for land donated to attain the private airport sponsor's local
matching share of an AIP grant. Date-of-acquisition valuation
for land will continue for FAA reimbursement of the cost of
previously acquired land.
Airport preservation.--The Committee directs the Federal
Aviation Administration to give priority consideration to the
preservation of public use, general aviation, and reliever
airports in those States whose general aviation and reliever
airports are threatened with closure, and where such closures
would significantly add to the extensive delays already
encountered at major hubs serving those States.
Significant emphasis should be placed on those States whose
critical reliever airports and general aviation airports are
predominantly privately owned public use facilities, which are
threatened with closure but are under consideration for
preservation through public ownership.
Princeton Airport.--The Committee is aware of ongoing
concerns regarding the routing of flights over the residential
areas near Princeton Airport, NJ. Princeton Airport is now in
the process of developing a master plan and airport layout plan
[ALP], which must be approved by the FAA as well as by the
State.
In order to encourage prompt resolution of the issues at
Princeton Airport, the Committee directs the FAA to (1)
withhold release of any additional AIP funds to the Princeton
Airport for any airport development project; and (2) to
negotiate with the State of New Jersey to amend the State Block
Grant Pilot Program Agreement of July 10, 1993, and the State
Block Grant Agreement of July 19, 1993, to provide for
withholding the release of any State Block Grant Pilot Program
funds to Princeton Airport for any airport development project,
until the current environmental assessment and the master plan/
ALP have been completed and evaluated with full public input
and comment; and, until the Secretary is satisfied and reports
to the Committee that fair consideration has been given to the
interests of the communities affected by Princeton Airport, as
required by section 509(b)(4) of the Airport and Airway
Improvement Act of 1982 for direct AIP grants; and, that any
proposed project in Princeton Airport's master plan is
consistent with adopted master plans of communities affected by
the airport.
Similar language was included in last year's report. The
Committee is pleased to learn that progress on this issue has
been made. The Committee encourages parties associated with
this dispute to continue their negotiations so that a final
solution to this problem can be reached.
Flood-damaged Missouri airports.--It is the Committee's
understanding that the FAA assured the State of Missouri funds
for 1993 flood-damaged airports. In addition, it is the
Committee's understanding that the State has provided the
necessary documentation requested by the FAA, including damage
reports and estimates of repairs. At this time, the FAA has not
fulfilled its commitment. Therefore, the Committee directs the
FAA to fulfill its commitment to the State by providing
$2,100,000 from existing funds to finish the flood repair
projects to ensure that the air transportation system remains
safe, efficient, and available for public use.
Maryland air noise.--The Committee directs the Federal
Aviation Administration to enforce all applicable rules and
regulations governing noise abatement procedures at Washington
National Airport and closely monitor aircraft noise in
Montgomery County, MD. The Committee also directs the FAA to
work with the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority to
continue efforts aimed at reducing aircraft noise in Montgomery
County.
Air Traffic Control Corporation
The Committee for years has been frustrated by delays and
cost overruns by the FAA in its capital improvement programs.
The Committee also has expressed repeatedly its concerns over
the FAA's ability to adequately staff air traffic control
facilities, particularly in the wake of the PATCO strike.
Accordingly, the Committee commends Vice President Gore and his
National Performance Review effort and Secretary Pena for his
efforts to address these and other issues facing the FAA and
the air traffic control [ATC] system.
It should be noted that the Department has taken several
significant steps to better manage programs that have been
plagued by delays and overruns, including the advanced
automation system [AAS]. The Committee commends these efforts.
However, it also recognizes that many of the problems with
programs such as the AAS result in large part from the
interrelated issues--procurement, personnel, and budget--
identified by the administration in its ATC reform proposal;
and, further, that the long-term success of the
administration's changes are affected by these same issues. The
Committee is also aware that the FAA has undertaken some two
dozen internal reorganizations in the last decade without being
able to successfully address the underlying problems that have
plagued the ATC system.
It is clearly the top priority of the air traffic control
system to ensure the safety of all those using the Nation's
airspace. In order to ensure that the outstanding safety record
of U.S. aviation continues, it is essential that new
technologies be brought on line more quickly and cost
effectively than has been the case under current FAA
procedures. In its May 1994 Air Traffic Control Corporation
study, the administration provided extensive summaries of the
problems contributing to the inefficiencies of the ATC system
and discussed a range of options for addressing those problems,
both within the existing FAA and through the proposed creation
of the U.S. Air Traffic Services Corporation [USATS].
This proposal is of significant interest to this Committee
for two principal reasons. First, the proposal attempts to
address problems identified and focused on by this Committee.
Second, any proposal to significantly alter the structure and
the function of the FAA would have direct impacts on programs
funded through the Committee, and on the appropriations process
more generally. The Committee intends to continue working with
the administration in efforts to bring meaningful reform to the
air traffic control system.
general provisions
FAA technical center.--The Committee has a general
provision naming the Federal Aviation Administration technical
center located at Atlantic City International Airport in
Pomona, NJ, as the William J. Hughes Technical Center.
Congressman Hughes served the citizens of the Second District
of New Jersey for 20 years. During his tenure in Congress his
statesmanship won him the admiration of all of his colleagues.
The Committee believes the naming of the technical center in
the congressional district he once served would be a fitting
tribute and sign of appreciation to a man of Congressman
Hughes' stature.
O'Hare Airport slot management.--The Committee agrees with
the House bill language contained in section 323 which would
prohibit the Department of Transportation from withdrawing
domestic slots at Chicago's O'Hare Airport and replacing them
with slots for international carriers. Statutory provisions
such as this would normally limit the Department's flexibility
in managing the bilateral negotiation process with other
countries and could reduce the U.S. ability to obtain access
for domestic carriers to foreign markets. However, since slots
are usually reallocated before the start of the winter season,
the Committee believes the Department has adequate time to
manage the slots at O'Hare.
Collective bargaining for international flightcrews of U.S.
carriers.--The Committee has included a general provision which
seeks to protect the public interest in uninterrupted
international air service and the stability of collective
bargaining relationships between U.S. air carriers and their
flightcrew employees (flight deck crewmembers and flight cabin
crewmembers). This is done by confirming that the Railway Labor
Act applies to U.S. air carriers and their flightcrew employees
while operating to, from, or between points outside the United
States.
The proposed amendment preserves the act's preference for
systemwide collective bargaining agreements and permits such
agreements to be enforced in the statutory adjustment board in
accordance with the parties' intent. The amendment also
prevents either a U.S. air carrier or a flightcrew labor
organization from evading its obligations under the act by
simply relying on the geographical location of a particular
operation or event within the system.
Passenger facility charge increase.--The proposed change to
section 40117(b)(2) of title 49, United States Code, will
permit an airport to increase the passenger facility fee it has
the authority to impose pursuant to its approved application by
no more than $2, and in such a manner as prescribed in
regulations, for the purpose of financing an eligible airport-
related project. The proposed change also allows an airport to
make an annual adjustment to the amount of its approved fee,
and any adjustment to that fee of no more than $2, by the
Consumer Price Index for each respective year to finance any
increase in the costs of constructing an eligible airport-
related project.
Passenger facility charge termination.--The objectives
behind creating passenger facility fees were to enhance airport
capacity and to increase investment in airport infrastructure.
One of the primary goals of the program was to allow passenger
facility revenues to leverage long-term financing through a
predictable flow of funds. However, the Secretary's ability to
terminate any part of the agency's authority to impose a
passenger facility fee because the agency used such fees to
finance a project not covered within the meaning of section
40117 has severely limited the ability to attract investment
capital.
The passenger facility fee termination provision is viewed
by the investment community as empowering the Secretary to
terminate the agency's authority to impose a passenger facility
fee unilaterally, with little warning, and without protecting
airport bond investors. Consequently, no passenger facility fee
bonds have been issued with an investment grade rating by
Moody's or Standard & Poor's.
The proposed change to Section 40117(h)(2) would prevent
termination of passenger facility revenues pledged to pay debt
service where the proceeds of bonds sold were used to construct
eligible airport-related projects.
Facilities and Equipment
(Airport and Airway Trust Fund)
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $2,087,489,000
Rescission.......................................... (35,000,000)
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 1,917,847,000
House allowance......................................... 2,000,000,000
Rescission.......................................... (60,000,000)
Committee recommendation................................ 1,890,377,000
Rescission
(70,000,000)
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.
CIP MILESTONES FOR MAJOR SYSTEM ACQUISITIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year of first-site implementation Year of last-site implementation
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
System name 1983 NAS 1983 NAS
plan 1991 CIP 1993 CIP 1995 CIP plan 1991 CIP 1993 CIP 1995 CIP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced automation system [AAS]................ 1990 1991 1991 ( \1\ ) 1994 2001 2004 ( \1\ )
Display system replacement [DSR]............ ........... ........... ........... 1998 ........... ........... ........... 2000
Standard terminal automation replacement
system [STARS]............................. ........... ........... ........... 1998 ........... ........... ........... 2003
Tower control computer complex [TCCC]....... ........... ........... ........... 1997 ........... ........... ........... 2000
Air route surveillance radar [ARSR-4]........... 1988 1993 1994 1995 1991 1996 1996 1997
Airport surface detection equipment [ASDE-3].... 1987 1992 1993 1993 1990 1994 1996 1999
Automated weather observing system [AWOS]....... 1986 1989 1989 1989 1990 1997 1997 1997
Central weather processor [CWP]................. 1990 1991 1991 1991 1991 1998 \2\ 1992 \2\ 1993
Flight service automation system [FSAS]......... 1984 1991 1991 1991 1989 1995 1994 1995
Mode S.......................................... 1988 1993 1994 1994 1993 1996 1996 1996
Radio microwave link [RML] replacement and
expansion...................................... 1985 1986 1986 1986 1989 1994 1993 1993
Terminal doppler weather radar [TDWR]........... ( \3\ ) 1993 1994 1994 ( \3\ ) 1996 1996 \4\ 1996
Voice switching and control system [VSCS]....... 1989 1995 1995 1995 1992 1997 1997 1997
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The AAS Program has been restructured into three areas: En route [DSR], terminal [STARS], and tower [TCCC].
\2\ Dates denoted are for MWP I only. The CWP-RWP segment has been eliminated as a continuation of the CWP Program, and has been merged with MWP II into
the Weather and Radar Processor [WARP] Program.
\3\ The TDWR was not included in the 1983 NAS plan.
\4\ Schedule under review for last-site implementation.
Source: FAA 1983 NAS plan, 1991, 1993, 1995 CIP.
REASONS FOR DELAY AND COST INCREASES IN CIP PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
System name Reasons for delay
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced automation system In general, AAS delays were due to an
[AAS]. overly ambitious plan, inadequate FAA
oversight of the contractor, and
ineffective resolution of requirements
issues. The AAS Program has been
restructured into three areas: En route,
terminal, and tower.
Air route surveillance Problems with the radar's development and
radar [ARSR-4]. site preparation delayed first-site
implementation. Testing took longer than
originally expected. More recently, delays
have occurred due to changes in system
design and interface problems with other
ATC systems.
Airport surface detection Original delays occurred because FAA and
equipment [ASDE-3]. the contractor underestimated software
complexity, FAA changed some requirements,
and testing uncovered some performance
problems. Software development,
establishing remote towers, site selection/
preparation, and the addition of seven
systems have delayed the program.
Automated weather observing Site prep, installation, and maintenance
system [AWOS]. problems, as well as delays in receiving
Government-furnished equipment contributed
to original delays.
Central weather processor Early software development problems and
[CWP]. software discrepancies during testing
delayed the system in early stages. The
program was descoped to just the CWP-MWP I
segment, which is now fully implemented.
Flight service automation Original delays occurred because of
system [FSAS]. software development and testing problems
with the Model I system. Scheduled for
completion in 1995.
Mode S..................... Problems in developing hardware and
software during initial phases delayed the
system, and software problems caused a
delay in first-site implementation.
Radar microwave link [RML] In the early stages, site acquisition and
replacement and expansion. prep problems delayed the system. Other
delays occurred because of a change in the
prime contractor and due to problems
encountered during operational test and
evaluation. Program implementation is
complete.
Terminal doppler weather Site availability and land acquisition
radar [TDWR]. problems have delayed last-site
implementation.
Voice switching and control Early delays were due to the two prototype
system [VSCS]. contractors having technical difficulties
in meeting FAA's requirements for system
reliability. Additional delays occurred
because of software development and
integration problems during the upgrade of
the prototype to a production model. The
implementation schedule has not changed
since the 1991 CIP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill includes an appropriation of $1,890,377,000 for
the facilities and equipment of the Federal Aviation
Administration. The Committee's recommended distributions of
the funds for each of the major accounts are as follows:
FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Projects 1996 budget Houseallowance Committeerecommendation
estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engineering, development, test, and evaluation:
En route programs:
Aviation weather services improvements........ $13,700,000 $26,100,000 $13,700,000
En Route Automation Program................... 317,400,000 256,700,000 256,700,000
Aeronautical data link........................ .............. 27,400,000 27,400,000
Oceanic automation system..................... 47,100,000 47,100,000 47,100,000
Voice switching and control system [VSCS]--
EDT&E........................................ 11,000,000 11,000,000 11,000,000
---------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, en route programs............... 389,200,000 368,300,000 355,900,000
=========================================================
Terminal programs:
Airport survillance radar [ASR]............... 14,300,000 14,300,000 14,300,000
Remote maintenance monitoring [RMMS]--sustain. 3,000,000 3,000,000 .......................
Terminal Automation Program................... 31,600,000 31,600,000 24,400,000
Tower Automation Program...................... 29,500,000 29,500,000 29,500,000
Terminal area surveillance sensor [TASS]...... .............. 5,800,000 5,000,000
---------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, terminal programs................. 78,400,000 84,200,000 73,200,000
=========================================================
Research, test, and evaluation equipment and
facilities:
Independent operational test and evaluation
[IOT&E] sup.................................. 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
FAA Technical Center facility--technical
building lease............................... 5,290,000 ............... 5,290,000
Utility plant modifications................... 1,560,000 ............... 1,560,000
General airport improvement................... 150,000 ............... 150,000
NAS improvement of system support laboratory.. 2,000,000 ............... 2,000,000
Technical Center facilities................... 9,600,000 20,600,000 9,600,000
Technical Center fiber data distribution
interface.................................... 2,000,000 ............... 2,000,000
CAMI infrastructure--modernization............ 600,000 600,000 600,000
Cabin research facility construction.......... 500,000 500,000 500,000
---------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, research, test, and evaluation
equipment and facilities................... 23,200,000 23,200,000 23,200,000
---------------------------------------------------------
Total, engineering, development, test, and
evaluation................................. 490,800,000 475,700,000 452,300,000
=========================================================
Air traffic control facilities and equipment:
En route programs:
Display channel complex rehosts............... .............. ............... 20,000,000
Long Range Radar [LRR] Program--replace/
establish.................................... 12,800,000 12,800,000 12,800,000
Radar microwave link [RML] system replacement/
expansion.................................... 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
Next generation weather radar [Nexrad]--
provide...................................... 10,800,000 10,800,000 10,800,000
Air traffic control en route radar facilities
improvements................................. 17,700,000 11,800,000 11,800,000
En Route Automation Program................... 17,700,000 17,700,000 17,700,000
Air traffic operations management system
[ATOMS]...................................... 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
Weather and radar processor [WARP]............ 7,800,000 7,800,000 7,800,000
Aeronautical data link [ADL] applications..... 15,000,000 ............... .......................
ARTCC building improvements/plant improvements 42,100,000 59,100,000 59,100,000
Voice switching and control system [VSCS]..... 112,700,000 106,100,000 106,100,000
Remote communication facilities [RCF's]--
expand/relocate.............................. 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
Traffic flow management....................... 28,500,000 40,300,000 34,000,000
Data multiplexing network [DMN]............... 7,900,000 7,900,000 7,900,000
Critical communications support............... 3,000,000 ............... 2,000,000
En route communications and control facilities
improvement.................................. 3,181,000 3,181,000 3,181,000
Satellite communications circuit backup....... 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
DOD base closure--facility transfer........... 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
Backup emergency communications [BUUEC]--
interim...................................... 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Volcano monitor............................... .............. ............... 2,000,000
---------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, en route programs............... 293,181,000 291,481,000 309,180,000
=========================================================
Terminal programs:
Terminal doppler weather radar [TDWR]--provide 4,900,000 47,400,000 7,400,000
Mode S--provide............................... 12,700,000 12,700,000 12,700,000
Terminal Automation Program................... 22,800,000 17,300,000 17,300,000
Airport movement area safety system [AMASS]... 11,300,000 31,300,000 .......................
Remote maintenance monitoring system [RMMS]--
provide...................................... 27,500,000 15,000,000 24,500,000
Terminal air traffic control facilities--
replace...................................... 60,400,000 60,400,000 60,400,000
Air traffic control tower [ATCT]/TRACON
facilites--improve........................... 25,664,000 22,800,000 25,600,000
Metroplex control facility--advanced facility
planning..................................... 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Emergency transceivers--replacement........... 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Terminal voice switch replacement [TVSR]...... 7,000,000 14,000,000 7,000,000
Radio control equipment [RCE]--provide........ 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,100,000
Terminal radar [ASR]--improve................. 3,506,000 3,506,000 2,700,000
Airport surface detection equipment [ASDE]--
additional establishment..................... 8,800,000 8,800,000 8,800,000
Low-cost ASDE................................. .............. 8,000,000 .......................
Loop technology (surface detection)........... .............. 2,000,000 .......................
Potomac project metroplex..................... 12,600,000 12,600,000 10,400,000
Northern California metroplex................. .............. 10,000,000 2,000,000
Atlanta metroplex............................. .............. 10,000,000 3,800,000
Employee safety/OSHA and environmental
compliance standards......................... 23,000,000 23,000,000 23,000,000
ARTS IIIA data entry/display.................. 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
Chicago metroplex--limited consolidation...... 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex program........... 13,000,000 13,000,000 13,000,000
Precision runway monitors..................... 1,200,000 1,200,000 .......................
New Austin Airport at Bergstrom............... 14,800,000 14,800,000 12,000,000
Southern California metroplex................. 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Integrated network management system.......... 300,000 ............... .......................
Terminal communications improvements.......... 3,495,000 3,495,000 3,495,000
---------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, terminal programs................. 262,065,000 340,401,000 243,195,000
=========================================================
Flight service programs:
Flight service station [FSS] modernization.... 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
Automated surface observing system [ASOS]..... 24,500,000 24,500,000 24,500,000
FSAS operational and supportability
implementation system [OASIS]................ 18,700,000 18,700,000 16,700,000
Flight service facilities improvement......... 805,000 805,000 805,000
---------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, flight services................... 45,005,000 45,005,000 43,005,000
=========================================================
Landing and Navigational Aids Program:
VOR/DME/TACAN network plan.................... 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
Instrument landing system [ILS]--replace (Mark
1A, 1B, and 1C).............................. 6,900,000 6,900,000 6,900,000
Instrument landing system [ILS]--establish/
upgrade...................................... 30,000,000 33,500,000 35,000,000
Visual navaids--establish/expand.............. 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Low level windshear alert system [LLWAS]--
upgrade to phase III......................... 1,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000
Runway visual range [RVR]..................... 2,000,000 9,000,000 2,000,000
Instrument approach procedures automation
[IAPA]....................................... 900,000 900,000 900,000
Gulf of Mexico Offshore Program............... 4,900,000 4,900,000 4,900,000
Instrument landing system [ILS]--replace GRN
27........................................... 6,900,000 6,900,000 6,900,000
Wide area augmentation system for GPS......... 86,900,000 86,900,000 86,900,000
Navigational and landing aids--improve........ 3,864,000 3,864,000 3,864,000
---------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, landing and navigational aids... 146,364,000 170,864,000 165,364,000
=========================================================
Other ATC facilities programs:
Alaskan NAS interfacility communications
system [ANICS]............................... 5,900,000 5,900,000 5,900,000
Fuel storage tank replacement and monitoring.. 25,000,000 9,400,000 23,800,000
FAA buildings and equipment--improve/modernize 7,232,000 7,232,000 7,232,000
Electrical power systems--sustain/support..... 5,400,000 5,400,000 5,400,000
Air navigational aids and air traffic control
facilities (local projects).................. 2,500,000 ............... 1,000,000
Air navigational facilities/air traffic
control system support--provide.............. 4,500,000 ............... 2,500,000
Purchase land or easement for existing
facilities................................... 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
Aircraft and Related Equipment Program........ 4,900,000 4,900,000 3,900,000
Aircraft fleet modernization.................. 55,000,000 55,000,000 55,000,000
Airport cable loop systems--sustained support. 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Computer-aided engineering graphics [CAEG]
replacement.................................. 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
---------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, other ATC facility programs..... 115,432,000 92,832,000 109,732,000
---------------------------------------------------------
Total, air traffic control facilities and
equipment................................ 862,047,000 940,583,000 870,477,000
=========================================================
Non-air traffic control facilities and equipment:
Support equipment:
NAS Management Automation Program [NASMAP].... 2,000,000 ............... 1,500,000
Hazardous materials management................ 22,100,000 21,000,000 22,100,000
National airspace system recovery
communications [RCOM]........................ 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Aviation safety analysis system [ASAS]........ 19,400,000 19,400,000 19,400,000
Operational data management system [ODMS]..... 4,900,000 4,900,000 4,900,000
Child care facilities......................... 2,600,000 5,200,000 2,600,000
FAA employee housing--provide................. 4,900,000 4,900,000 4,900,000
Logistics support systems and facilities...... 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Test equipment--maintenance support for
replacement.................................. 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
Integrated flight quality assurance........... 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
Safety performance analysis system [SPAS]..... 3,200,000 3,200,000 3,200,000
Portable performance support system pen-based
technology................................... 2,100,000 2,100,000 2,100,000
National Aviation Safety Data Center [ASAAP].. 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Aviation security............................. 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000
---------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, support equipment................. 79,200,000 78,700,000 78,700,000
=========================================================
Training, equipment, and facilities:
Computer-based instruction/distance learning.. 8,800,000 8,800,000 8,800,000
Aeronautical center training and support
facilities................................... 6,900,000 6,900,000 6,900,000
National airspace system [NAS] training
facilities................................... 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000
---------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, training, equipment, and
facilities............................... 18,700,000 18,700,000 18,700,000
---------------------------------------------------------
Total, non-air traffic control facilities
and equipment............................ 97,900,000 97,400,000 92,400,000
=========================================================
Mission support:
System support and services:
System engineering and technical assistance
[SETA]....................................... 72,400,000 72,400,000 69,400,000
Program support leases........................ 27,000,000 31,117,000 27,000,000
Logistics support services.................... 7,000,000 7,000,000 7,000,000
Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center--lease...... 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000
In-plant national airspace system [NAS]
contract support services.................... 4,900,000 4,900,000 4,900,000
Transition engineering support................ 50,000,000 60,000,000 50,000,000
Frequency and spectrum engineering--provide... 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000
Acquisition oversight......................... 400,000 400,000 400,000
FAA system architecture....................... 4,900,000 2,000,000 4,000,000
Technical services support contract [TSSC].... 62,200,000 61,200,000 60,200,000
Permanent change of station [PCS]............. 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000
---------------------------------------------------------
Total, mission support...................... 260,100,000 270,317,000 254,200,000
=========================================================
Personnel and related expenses........................ 207,000,000 216,000,000 216,000,000
---------------------------------------------------------
Total, all activities........................... 1,917,847,000 2,000,000,000 1,890,377,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
engineering, development, test, and evaluation
The Committee recommends $359,900,000 for various
engineering, development, test, and evaluation activities.
Advanced automation system [AAS].--The advanced automation
system's purpose is to modernize essential outdated components
of the air traffic control system so that they are more
reliable and efficient, are able to handle more air traffic
with fewer delays, and will enable airlines to realize savings
in fuel and crew costs. The AAS includes real time data
processing software and computers, and new air traffic control
consoles which will be installed in FAA en route centers,
terminal facilities, and towers.
In response to the Committee's longstanding concerns of
cost growth and schedule delays, a major restructuring of the
AAS Program was completed in 1995. This restructuring included
both technical and management changes resulting in an estimated
savings of nearly $1,600,000,000. From the technical
standpoint, program risk has been reduced, software coding
practices have been improved, and a greater emphasis has been
placed on off-the-shelf hardware and software. FAA management
of AAS has been separated into three product areas: (1) en
route automation, (2) terminal automation, and (3) tower
automation. These product areas are to improve FAA program
management through increased accountability of these areas.
En route automation includes the display system replacement
[DSR] as a cost-effective modification to the initial sector
suite system [ISSS]; display channel complex rehost [DCCR], a
low-risk contingency system; advanced en route automation
[AERA], enhancements providing direct benefits to airway users;
en route software development support [ERSDS], maintains
software in existing system; en route automation equipment,
maintains existing hardware; flight data input/output [FDIO];
and en route stand alone radar training system [ESARTS].
An independent study by the Carnegie-Mellon Software
Executive Institute found the ISSS/DSR software architecture to
be sound. A follow-on, in-depth, FAA study concluded the
software carried over from ISSS to DSR was acceptable. The DSR
will continue under the modified contract with Loral who
completed the purchase of IBM Federal Systems in 1995. Other
system procurements are separate efforts and will be
accomplished under existing contracts or competitively awarded
contracts. To carry out the necessary modernization efforts in
the en route automation segment, the Committee recommends
fiscal year 1996 funding of $256,700,000 under budget line item
engineering, development, test, and evaluation, and $17,700,000
under budget line item procurement and modernization for en
route programs.
Terminal automation includes the standard terminal
automation replacement system [STARS], a cost-effective
alternative to the canceled terminal advanced automation system
[TAAS]; automated radar terminal system [ARTS] IIIE, interim
system for large facilities, digital bright radar indicator
tower equipment [DBRITE], display equipment for tower air
traffic controllers; terminal software development [TSD],
interim software maintenance to existing system.
The STARS will be competitively procured based on minimal
enhancements to existing off-the-shelf systems. For terminal
automation modernization, the Committee recommends fiscal 1996
funding of $24,400,000 under budget line item engineering,
development, test, and evaluation, and $17,300,000 under budget
line item procurement and modernization for terminal programs.
Tower automation includes the tower control computer
complex [TCCC], which upgrades tower computers and displays,
will continue under a separate contract agreement with Loral.
The Committee recommends fiscal year 1996 funding of
$29,500,000 under budget line item engineering, development,
test, and evaluation to complete development and test, and
install TCCC at one key site. Additional systems are planned
for approximately 70 of the FAA's busiest towers.
Aviation weather services.--The Committee has provided the
full amount requested by the administration for aviation
weather services, $13,700,000. This funding level would reduce
the House allowance by $12,400,000. The Committee does not
believe that the aviation weather services program as described
should be funded within the ``Facilities and equipment''
account, and the resources provided would be best spent in the
``Aviation weather research'' account within research and
development.
Aeronautical data link.--The Committee has provided
$27,400,000 under the en route engineering, development, test,
and evaluation program. The Committee agrees with the House
that increased funding is necessary for this program, to
accelerate implementation of the data link infrastructure.
Voice switching and control system [VSCS].--The Committee
concurs with the House recommendation to provide $11,000,000
for further engineering, development, test, and evaluation of
the Voice Switching and Control System. Funding is provided
under this particular budget activity rather than the
procurement subcategory, to more accurately reflect the nature
of the work being performed.
procurement and modernization of air traffic control facilities and
equipment
en route programs
The Committee's recommendation is for $165,364,000.
Display channel complex rehosts.--The Committee has
provided $20,000,000 above the administration's request for the
display channel complex rehost. The Committee feels that this
is the best short-term remedy for the aging computers that are
now at busy air traffic control centers. It was obvious with
the recent outages at the Chicago center that speedy
replacement of the display channel complex at the centers is
necessary.
The Committee believes that, until air traffic control's
modernization efforts come to fruition, this funding, if
properly used, would provide some insurance against further
problems that place the entire air route control system in
jeopardy.
The Committee believes that FAA needs to implement the
display channel complex replacement or rehosting program as
soon as possible, and that a solution to the 1970's vintage,
IBM 9020E computer is necessary. The Committee believes that
rehosting may be necessary until the successor to this
equipment, the display channel complex replacement which is now
only being prototyped at the FAA technical center, is
operational.
The Committee further believes that attention should
immediately be paid to the five IBM 9020E sites, which are
Chicago, Cleveland, Washington, New York, and Dallas/Fort
Worth. The Committee directs that funds available after the
rehosting of these centers be used at the remaining 17 FAA
centers. If necessary, the FAA can use some of these funds for
necessary administrative costs of its airways system
specialists.
Traffic control en route facilities improvements.--The
Committee has reduced the en route radar facilities
improvements request to the House level of $11,800,000 due to
what it considers inadequate justification for the total
funding requested.
Air route traffic control center [ARTCC] improvement/plant
modernization/space expansion.--FAA is requesting $42,100,000
to perform needed modernization and expansion at its ARTCC's to
accommodate new equipment that will comprise the advanced
automation system. The Committee has provided $59,100,000,
which was also included by the House. This is a $17,000,000
increase over the original budget request. The Committee
believes that this increase is necessary for display system
replacement [DSR].
Voice switching and control systems [VSCS].--The House has
reduced funding under procurement and modernization for VSCS by
$6,600,000. The Committee agrees with the House recommendation
to provide funding of $106,100,000 for VSCS. The Committee
believes that this reduction to engineering support for
maintenance, program management, airway facilities training,
and technical services can be accommodated within the existing
schedule for fiscal year 1996.
Traffic flow management.--The Committee has provided
$5,500,000 above the administration's request for the traffic
flow management program. At this funding level, however, it is
still $5,700,000 below the House allowance. The Committee does
agree with the general thrust of the House approach, which was
to provide additional funding to accelerate the center/TRACON
automation system. The Committee also expects that the
additional funding provided would be for the terminal air
traffic control automation program [TATCA].
Critical telecommunications support.--The Committee has
reduced funding under the activity by $1,000,000 due to budget
constraints.
Volcano monitor.--The Committee has included funding for
the Alaska Volcano Observatory to place seismological equipment
and data transmission facilities on suspect volcanoes across
the Alaska peninsula and the Aleutian Islands.
TERMINAL PROGRAMS
Terminal doppler weather radar [TDWR].--The Committee has
included $2,500,000 above the budget request for the TDWR
program. It expects that this increased funding would be used
for the installation of the TDWR at Las Vegas, and the
environmental impact statement process in New York. The House
had included funding for an additional five new TDWR's.
However, the FAA has appealed this on the basis that the more
cost-effective way to meet future windshear requirements is
through the ASR/windshear alert program.
Terminal automation.--The Committee has reduced the
requested level for the terminal automation program to
$17,300,000. The Committee has reduced funding for this program
because of the unobligated balance of $7,000,000 that FAA is
holding out for potential problems arising in developing and
fielding new software. However, based on information, the
software would not be fielded until 1997 at the earliest.
Airport movement area safety system [AMASS].--The House has
included $20,000,000 above the administration's request for the
airport movement area safety system [AMASS]. Airport movement
area safety system is designed to provide audio and visual
alerts for controllers who are using the airport surface
detection equipment [ASDE-3). This system is expected to help
alleviate false target problems experienced at some sites that
are using the ASDE-3 equipment. As of fiscal year 1995, the
agency has received approximately $26,000,000 for the AMASS
system, and is requesting an additional $11,300,000 in fiscal
year 1996 for production and installation of AMASS at 11 of 40
sites.
The fiscal year 1996 request would cover the procurement of
an additional 11 AMASS units, but it is unclear to the
Committee what the obligation plans are for those funds. It is
the Committee's understanding that the current schedule does
not plan for ordering full production of the AMASS systems
until May 1997, and, therefore, the unobligated balances that
currently exist should be sufficient to allow the agency to
order three full-scale development and seven low-rate initial
production units [LRIP] systems.
The House has provided $31,300,000 for the AMASS system.
The Committee supports the program, but believes that because
of schedule delays and slippages, additional funding is not
warranted at this time.
Remote maintenance monitoring [RMMS].--The Committee has
reduced the requested level for remote maintenance monitoring
by $3,000,000. This reduction was due to budget constraints.
The Committee has provided $9,500,000 above the House level,
and expects that the restored funding will provide improvements
to software and hardware systems that will be the basis for the
open system architecture in order to better facilitate
centralized maintenance.
Terminal voice switch replacement [TVSR].--The Committee
has reduced the House allowance by $7,000,000, restoring this
line item to the original fiscal year 1996 budget request of
$7,000,000. The Committee has no evidence that, with the
increased funding for the terminal voice switch replacement
project, this funding could be obligated in fiscal year 1996,
though it does support the House's emphasis to support the
enhanced TVSR procurement.
Terminal radar [ASR]--improve.--The Committee has slightly
reduced the request for the terminal radar improvement program
(-$800,000). The Committee has reduced funding for the
contingency funding which was requested by FAA, and has also
cut the fiscal year 1996 request based on funding available
through previous projects coming in significantly under budget.
The Committee feels there are sufficient unobligated balances
in this account to handle correction of site-specific problems
or deficiencies that typically arise during the course of the
year.
Below-cost ASDE.--The Committee has eliminated funding
provided by the House for the below-cost ASDE program. No
funding was requested under the ``Facilities and equipment''
account by the administration. The Committee believes that FAA
can and should use research, engineering, and development
funding to explore low-cost surface detection technology
alternatives, but has not provided funding in this account,
which is used for procurement.
Loop technology (surface detection).--The Committee has not
included the $2,000,000 which was provided by the House for
loop technology surface detection. FAA has appealed to the
Committee that the sponsored demonstration program of this
technology determined that loop technology is not as effective
as other technologies for airport surface detection.
Potomac Metroplex.--The Committee has reduced the requested
funding for the Potomac Metroplex by $2,200,000, because it
believes that actual land costs should and could be lower than
originally planned by the Federal Aviation Administration. The
Committee was briefed that FAA will do all that is possible to
find a low-cost or a no-cost site, and, therefore, the
Committee believes the $6,000,000 budgeted for land purchase is
extremely high. The $6,000,000 figure was estimated on the need
for a 20-acre site costing $300,000 per acre. Other TRACON's
across the country are housed on much less land than the 20
acres budgeted by FAA.
Northern California Metroplex.--The House has included
$10,000,000 above the budget request for the northern
California Metroplex. The Committee supports the need for
expediting site selection and engineering work in the northern
California area for the metroplex, and has provided $2,000,000
for that purpose.
Atlanta Metroplex.--The House has included $10,000,000 for
an Atlanta Metroplex, funding which was not requested by the
administration. The Committee supports expeditious creation of
an Atlanta Metroplex, and has included $3,800,000 for land
acquisition, environmental impact statements, and preliminary
engineering work, but believes that remaining funding can be
deferred until fiscal year 1997.
Precision runway monitors.--The House has included
$1,200,000 for the precision runway monitor program. For fiscal
year 1996, the administration requested $1,200,000 for
engineering and program support for the installation of
procured systems. This program has an unobligated balance of
approximately $30,000,000. To date, FAA has installed only one
precision runway monitor, and delay in the validation of
additional sites makes it unlikely that additional systems will
be purchased or installed in fiscal year 1995. Consequently,
the unobligated prior-year funds should be sufficient to cover
any 1996 engineering and program support needs.
New Austin Airport.--The Committee has reduced the
requested funding for the new Austin Airport by $2,800,000. The
Committee has reduced funding by one-half, which was originally
estimated for the cable-loop system. It does not appear that
FAA will obligate any of the $18,500,000 received in fiscal
year 1995 for the new Austin Airport until August of this year.
If other alternatives are selected for a combined tower TRACON
at the airport, it would push out the project's schedule even
further, and possibly reduce FAA's funding needs because of the
need to replan the project. Also, FAA is in discussion with the
city of Austin for cost sharing some of the project's costs.
Therefore, the Committee feels that the funding cut will not
impair nor slow down implementation of this project, which the
Committee supports.
flight service programs
Automated surface observing system [ASOS].--The Committee
has provided $24,500,000 for ASOS, which is the same as the
House level and the administration's request. The Committee is
aware of a recent report regarding technical problems in
commissioning ASOS sites. The Committee understands there are
off-the-shelf solutions to these problems but implementation of
these have been slow. Therefore, the Committee directs the FAA
to report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
no later than November 1995, regarding the intended solutions
to the technical and installation problems associated with this
program and the timeline for which it will be implemented.
Flight service automation system [OASIS].--OASIS is
designed to provide a life-cycle replacement and upgrade of the
current flight service automation system. It appears as though
the contract award for the OASIS is scheduled for June 1996.
The funds budgeted for the OASIS system will be needed barring
any further delays in issuing requests for proposal. However,
four OASIS minimum configuration units which were to be
initially acquired for the training academy could be eliminated
and, therefore, about $2,000,000 of the original request could
be reduced.
landing and navigational aids program
Instrument landing system [ILS] establish/upgrade.--As part
of its report accompanying the Transportation Appropriations
Act for fiscal year 1995, the Committee directed the FAA to
deploy an ILS at Newark International Airport on runway
22Right. In the past, the Committee has been frustrated by the
extensive delays that plagued the installation of ILS systems
at Newark. The Committee encourages the FAA to work
aggressively to install the ILS on runway 22Right so that its
benefits to safety and efficiency can be realized as soon as
possible. The Committee has included $4,500,000 for a CAT II/
III ILS at Lanai Airport, HA.
Low-level windshear alert system [LLWAS].--The Committee
agrees with the House's allowance of $15,000,000 for the low-
level windshear alert system. This is $14,000,000 above the
original fiscal year 1996 request. The Committee believes that
this increase can be used for systems that detect dangerous
windshear conditions, and funds could also be used to restore
existing LLWAS-II's to original performance standards and
provide for new supportable and maintainable equipment.
Runway visual range.--The Committee has provided $2,000,000
for the runway visual range program, which was the fiscal year
1996 budget request. Under existing budget constraints, the
Committee believes that the scarce resources could be allocated
to higher priority programs.
other atc facilities programs
Fuel storage tank replacement.--The House allowance would
cut the fuel storage tank replacement and monitoring program
from the requested level of $25,000,000 to $9,400,000. The
Committee has restored most of the House's reduction by
providing $23,800,000. The restored funding is essential, and
is required to comply with Federal and State laws which require
the removal of fuel storage tanks by the end of December 1998.
Funding for this program is necessary to be in place to address
the multitude of tanks and sites that need removal and
replacement to meet environmental laws.
ATC facilities (local projects).--The Committee has
provided $1,000,000 for the air traffic control facilities
local projects. This restored funding would be used to achieve
more effective and cost-efficient management. The funding
provided by the Committee is expected to allow regions to
respond to various types of emergencies that arise during the
year which involve air traffic control facilities, and is
needed for timely response by FAA to correct site-specific
emergencies.
Air navigation facilities--provide.--The Committee has
provided $2,500,000 for the air navigation facilities support
and provide line item. The restored funding will provide for
critical air traffic control facility implementation efforts,
which the Committee expects would be directly related to safety
improvements of the air traffic control system. It can also be
used as a fund to enable the resolution of unforeseen project
problems.
Aircraft and related equipment.--The Committee has reduced
the ``Aircraft and related equipment'' account $1,000,000 below
the requested level. Funding was requested to upgrade avionics
and flight inspection systems used in FAA-owned aircraft, and
to procure and enhance other systems used in scheduling and
monitoring the aircraft. Based on budget reports from FAA,
there appears to be a significant amount of unobligated
balances that were provided in prior years. The funding
earmarked for the aircraft-800 avionics upgrade project appears
to be $1,000,000 more than current estimates for the upgrade.
Therefore, the Committee has reduced the fiscal year 1996
request by that amount.
major equipment activity
TERMINAL DOPPLER WEATHER RADAR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commissioning
City Delivery dates dates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma City--FAA Academy. Dec. 9, 1991 \1\....... NA
Memphis.................... June 2, 1992 \1\....... Dec. 13, 1994.
Houston Intercontinental... Oct. 2, 1992 \1\....... July 21, 1994.
Atlanta.................... Jan. 13, 1993 \1\...... August 1995.
Washington National........ July 8, 1993 \1\....... July 1995.
Denver..................... July 6, 1993 \1\....... Do.
Chicago O'Hare............. Sept. 17, 1993 \1\..... September 1995.
St. Louis.................. Jan. 3, 1994 \1\....... Feb. 1, 1995.
Orlando.................... Mar. 17, 1994 \1\...... December 1995.\2\
New Orleans................ Apr. 2, 1994 \1\....... September 1995.\2\
Tampa...................... May 16, 1994 \1\....... October 1995.
Miami...................... June 6, 1994........... November 1995.\2\
Pittsburgh................. July 10, 1994 \1\...... September 1995.
Andrews.................... Aug. 13, 1994 \1\...... Do.
Newark..................... ...do.................. Do.
Boston..................... Aug. 29, 1994 \1\...... August 1995.
Kansas City................ Oct. 2, 1994 \1\....... July 1995.
Detroit.................... Oct. 15, 1994.......... September 1995.\2\
Houston Hobby.............. Apr. 8, 1995........... October 1995.\2\
Dallas Love................ Nov. 1, 1994 \1\....... August 1995.\2\
Oklahoma City--PSF facility Dec. 14, 1994.......... NA
Dallas/Fort Worth.......... Jan. 30, 1995.......... October 1995.\2\
Dayton..................... Dec. 19, 1994 \1\...... November 1995.
Wichita.................... Feb. 6, 1995........... November 1995.\2\
Indianapolis............... Mar. 5, 1995........... January 1995.\2\
Cincinnati................. December 1995.......... September 1996.\2\
Philadelphia............... July 1995.............. March 1996.\2\
Phoenix.................... September 1995......... July 1996.\2\
Milwaukee.................. May 12, 1995........... February 1996.\2\
Chicago Midway............. To be determined \3\... To be
determined.\3\
Cleveland.................. August 1995............ May 1996.\2\
Columbus................... November 1995.......... August 1996.\2\
San Juan................... To be determined \3\... To be
determined.\3\
West Palm Beach............ June 1995.............. March 1996.\2\
Nashville.................. March 1996............. December 1996.\2\
Louisville................. June 1996.............. March 1997.\2\
Washington Dulles.......... October 1995........... July 1996.\2\
Charlotte.................. August 1995............ December 1995.\2\
Salt Lake City............. November 1995.......... August 1996.\2\
Fort Lauderdale............ To be determined \3\... To be
determined.\3\
Baltimore.................. January 1996........... October 1995.\2\
Raleigh/Durham............. April 1996............. January 1997.\2\
Minneapolis................ February 1996.......... November 1996.\2\
Oklahoma City.............. January 1996........... October 1996.\2\
Tulsa...................... May 1996............... February 1997.\2\
New York City (JFK and LGA) To be determined \3\... To be
\4\. determined.\3\
Las Vegas \4\.............. To be determined \3\... To be
determined.\3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FAA has completed contract inspection and acceptance of equipment.
\2\ Date indicated is for planning purposes only, subject to change;
commissioning date to be established after FAA actually accepts
equipment.
\3\ These locations are not yet scheduled for implementation due to
delays encountered in resolving environmental issues and public
opposition, and in acquiring land.
\4\ The radar for New York City will serve both JFK and LGA airports;
the radar planned for LGA is relocated in Las Vegas.
NA: Not available.
AIRPORT SURFACE DETECTION EQUIPMENT [ASDE-3]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commissioning
Site location Delivery date date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA Academy \1\................. NA.................. NA
FAA Technical Center \2\........ NA.................. NA
Pittsburgh, PA.................. December 1989....... May 1995.
San Francisco................... November 1991....... June 1995.
Dallas/Fort Worth............... February 1992....... March 1995.
Philadelphia.................... February 1992....... May 1995.
Los Angeles \3\................. August 1992......... April 1995.
Detroit......................... August 1992......... December 1994.
Cleveland....................... August 1992......... December 1994.
Boston.......................... August 1992......... March 1995.
Portland........................ August 1992......... December 1994.
Atlanta......................... September 1992...... January 1995.
Seattle......................... September 1992...... December 1993.
Los Angeles \3\................. February 1993....... February 1995.
Denver (DIA) \3\ \4\............ March 1993.......... April 1995.
St. Louis....................... December 1993....... February 1995.
Denver (DIA).................... December 1993....... May 1995.
New York-Kennedy................ January 1994........ February 1995.
Minneapolis..................... July 1994........... March 1995.
Anchorage....................... August 1994......... June 1995.
New Orleans..................... October 1994........ June 1995.
Baltimore....................... November 1994....... May 1995.
Kansas City..................... December 1994....... May 1995.
Miami........................... February 1995....... July 1995.
Houston \3\..................... February 1995....... July 1995.
Memphis......................... June 1995........... November 1995.
Chicago......................... July 1995........... December 1995.
Houston \3\..................... September 1995...... February 1996.
Charlotte \5\................... October 1995........ March 1996.
Raleigh-Durham.................. December 1995....... May 1996.
Washington National............. January 1996........ June 1996.
Cincinnati \5\.................. March 1996.......... August 1996.
Dulles \5\...................... April 1996.......... September 1996.
San Diego \5\................... June 1996........... November 1996.
Orlando \5\..................... September 1996...... February 1997.
Andrews AFB..................... March 1997.......... August 1997.
Orange County................... April 1999.......... September 1999.
Tampa........................... June 1999........... November 1999.
New York-LaGuardia.............. August 1999......... December 1999.
Newark.......................... October 1999........ March 2000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FAA training/field support/depot support facility.
\2\ FAA R&D system for runway incursion.
\3\ Dual sensor facilities.
\4\ Second system was procured in fiscal year 1993.
\5\ Fiscal year 1993 congressionally mandated sites.
Instrument landing systems--establish
Location Runway
Equipment:
Category III:
Atlanta, GA............................................... 27L
St. Louis, MO............................................. 14R
Dallas/Fort Worth, TX..................................... 16L
Dallas/Fort Worth, TX..................................... 34R
Installation:
CAT I sites:
St. Louis, MO............................................. 06
Islip, NY................................................. 15R
Newburgh, NY.............................................. 27
Rantoul, IL............................................... 27
Manchester, NH............................................ 17
Colorado Springs, CO...................................... 17L
Orlando, FL............................................... 35R
New Orleans, LA........................................... 19
CAT II sites:
New York, NY.............................................. 22L
Pittsburgh, PA............................................ 10R
CAT III sites:
Kansas City, MO........................................... 01R
Chicago, IL............................................... 27L
Chicago, IL............................................... 27R
Salt Lake City, UT........................................ 34F
Atlanta, GA............................................... 26R
Charlotte, NC............................................. 36R
Memphis, TN............................................... 35
Little Rock, AR........................................... 22R
St. Louis, MO............................................. 32L
Detroit Metro, MI......................................... 22
Boston, MA................................................ 33L
Louisville, KY............................................ 35L
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX..................................... 36L
Chantilly, VA............................................. 01L
Instrument landing systems--Mark 1A, B, C--replace
Location Runway
Installation:
Boise, MT..................................................... 10R
Lancaster, PA................................................. 8
Philadelphia, PA.............................................. 27R
Los Angeles, CA............................................... 07L
Rutland, VT................................................... 19
Texarkana, TX................................................. 22
Hazelton, PA.................................................. 28
Reedsville, PA................................................ 6
Houghton, MI.................................................. 31
Elkins, WV.................................................... 4
Parkersburg, WV............................................... 3
Traverse City, MI............................................. 28
International Falls, MN....................................... 31
Minneapolis, MN............................................... 22
Carbondale, PA................................................ 18L
Detroit Metro, MI............................................. 27R
Rockland, ME.................................................. 3
Springfield, VT............................................... 5
St. Petersburg, FL............................................ 17L
Anniston, AL.................................................. 5
Chesterfield, MO.............................................. 08R
Dothan, AL.................................................... 32
Hobbs, NM..................................................... 3
Waco, TX...................................................... 23
Hot Springs, AR............................................... 5
Lawrence, MA.................................................. 5
New Orleans, LA............................................... 1
Instrument landing systems--GRN-27--replace
Location Runway
Installation:
Boston, MA.................................................... 04R
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX......................................... 18R
FAA Academy, OK.....................................................
Indianapolis, IN.............................................. 05L
Los Angeles, CA............................................... 25L
Anchorage, AK................................................. 06R
Fairbanks, AK................................................. 01L
Andrews AFB, MD............................................... 19R
Greer, SC..................................................... 03
New York (JFK), NY............................................ 13L
Philadelphia, PA.............................................. 09R
Andrews AFB, MD............................................... 01L
Chicago, IL................................................... 14L
Pittsburgh, PA................................................ 10L
Salt Lake City, UT............................................ 34R
Huntsville, AL................................................ 18R
Spokane-Geiger, WA............................................ 21
Syracuse, NY.................................................. 28
Nashville, TN................................................. 02L
New Orleans, LA............................................... 10
Sacramento (Metro), CA........................................ 16R
Spokane-Geiger, WA............................................ 3
San Francisco, CA............................................. 28R
St. Louis, MO................................................. 30R
Washington (National), DC..................................... 36
Bangor, ME.................................................... 15
Bristol, TN................................................... 23
Note.--Changing conditions at airport locations may dictate that
installation priorities be modified.
Runway visual range
Asheville, NC
Atlanta, GA
Atlanta, GA
Charleston, SC
Charlotte, NC
Columbia, SC
Daytona Beach, FL
Fayetteville, NC
Fort Myers, FL
Hickory, NC
Huntsville, AL
Jackson, MS
Knoxville, TN
Lexington, KY
Miami, FL
North Myrtle Beach, SC
Orlando, FL
Tampa, FL
West Palm Beach, FL
Bakersfield, CA
Carlsbad, CA
Las Vegas, NV
Modesto, CA
Redding, CA
Reno, NV
Santa Maria, CA
Stockton, CA
Van Nuys, CA
Note.--Changing conditions at airport locations may dictate that
installation priorities be modified.
Visual navaids
Runway
Establish precision approach path indicators [PAPI's]:
Pittsburgh, PA................................................ 10C
Shreveport, LA................................................ 32
Homestead, FL................................................. 18
Bridgeport, CT................................................ 11
Tulluride, CO................................................. 27
Terminal air traffic control facilities
Funding for towers started in fiscal year 1990-94:
Little Rock, AR
Santa Barbara, CA
Covington, KY
Kansas City, MO
St. Louis, MO
Newark, NJ
Islip, NY
La Guardia, NY
Dallas (Addison), TX
Phase II funding for towers started in fiscal year 1995:
Merrill, AK
Birmingham, AL
Oakland, CA
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Salina, KS
St. Louis, MO
Manchester, NH
Columbus, OH
San Angelo, TX
Salt Lake City, UT
Newport News, VA
Roanoke, VA
Everett, WA
Phase I funding for towers started in fiscal year 1996:
Grand Canyon, AZ
Vero Beach, FL
Champaign, IL
Bedford, MA
Albany, NY
Abilene, TX
Corpus Christi, TX
Seattle, WA
procurement and modernization of nonair traffic control facilities and
equipment
The Committee recommends $92,400,000 for this budget
category.
SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
NAS management automation program.--The Committee has
provided $1,500,000 of the original $2,000,000 requested. The
House provided no funding for this activity. The Committee
expects that the restored funding is necessary to achieve more
cost-efficient management of the national airspace system
infrastructure.
Child care facilities.--The House has provided double the
amount requested for child care facilities. The Committee has
provided the full amount requested by the administration,
$2,600,000. Due to budget constraints faced by the Committee it
believes that funding could be allocated to higher priority
safety-related programs, and has reduced the House's allowance
to the originally requested level.
Aviation security.--The Committee has provided $5,000,000
for the aviation security line item, which is $3,000,000 more
than requested by the administration. The Committee agrees with
the House's observation that the procurement, installation, and
testing of prototype aviation security equipment in airports is
necessary, and that they should be ready in fiscal year 1996
for prototyping.
facilities and equipment mission support
The Committee recommends $259,200,000 for this budget
category.
Transition engineering support.--The Committee has provided
the amount requested for transition engineering support,
$50,000,000. This level is, however, $10,000,000 below the
House allowance. The Committee agrees with the House's
observation that new equipment must be installed and
commissioned in a timely manner, but believes that the original
request is sufficient to conduct the necessary transition
engineering support work.
FAA system architecture.--The Committee has provided
$4,000,000 for FAA system architecture, which will enable FAA
to better manage and control software cost schedules and
quality.
personnel and related expenses
Personnel and related expenses.--The Committee has provided
$9,000,000 above the administration's request for personnel and
related expenses, and agrees with the House that positions
which are already authorized need to be funded, in order to
provide FAA the level of resources necessary to install the
backlog of navigational and landing systems that have been
procured with facilities and equipment dollars.
Research, Engineering, and Development
(Airport and Airway Trust Fund)
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $259,192,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 267,661,000
House allowance......................................... 143,000,000
Committee recommendation
215,886,000
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 bill includes $215,886,000 for research, engineering,
and development. This level is $51,775,000 below the budget
request and $72,886,000 above the House allowance. The
Committee suggests the following allocation:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
1995 1996 budget Houseallowance Committee
appropriation estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
System development and infrastructure:
System planning and resource management........ $3,623,000 $3,953,000 $3,000,000 $3,700,000
Technical laboratory facility.................. 5,800,000 9,598,000 5,800,000 8,800,000
------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................... 9,432,000 13,551,000 8,800,000 12,500,000
============================================================
Capacity and air traffic management technology:
Air traffic management technology.............. 9,174,000 9,875,000 .............. 8,000,000
Oceanic automation program..................... 10,649,000 10,470,000 8,000,000 8,000,000
Terminal air traffic control automation [TATCA] 16,891,000 15,624,000 .............. ..............
Runway incursion reduction..................... 8,099,000 8,177,000 .............. 8,000,000
System capacity, planning, and improvements.... 12,082,000 12,256,000 6,000,000 12,000,000
Cockpit technology............................. 4,820,000 8,266,000 6,500,000 8,200,000
General Aviation and Vertical Technology Flight
Program....................................... 4,837,000 3,327,000 2,629,000 2,600,000
Modeling, analysis, and simulation............. 9,631,000 7,807,000 2,000,000 4,000,000
Future airway facilities technology............ 800,000 3,403,000 .............. ..............
------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................... 76,983,000 79,205,000 25,129,000 50,800,000
============================================================
Communications, navigation, and surveillance:
Communications................................. 18,080,000 15,367,000 10,000,000 10,000,000
Navigation..................................... 14,922,000 15,963,000 10,000,000 15,963,000
Surveillance................................... 3,962,000 ............ .............. ..............
------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................... 36,964,000 31,330,000 20,000,000 25,963,000
============================================================
Weather............................................ 2,909,000 6,493,000 6,493,000 6,493,000
Airport technology................................. 8,200,000 9,278,000 1,000,000 8,000,000
Aircraft safety technology:
Aircraft systems fire safety................... 1,200,000 3,906,000 .............. ..............
Advanced materials/structural safety........... 5,245,000 2,973,000 2,000,000 2,500,000
Propulsion and fuel systems.................... 3,436,000 4,059,000 .............. 4,055,000
Flight safety/atmospheric hazards research..... 5,000,000 4,173,000 4,173,000 4,173,000
Aging aircraft................................. 25,000,000 21,415,000 15,000,000 21,415,000
Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention
research...................................... 2,705,000 4,357,000 2,705,000 2,705,000
Fire research.................................. 4,500,000 4,604,000 .............. ..............
Fire research and safety....................... ............. ............ 5,700,000 5,700,000
General aviation renaissance................... ............. 1,005,000 .............. ..............
Cabin safety................................... ............. 1,055,000 ..............
------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................... 47,086,000 47,547,000 29,578,000 40,548,000
============================================================
System security technology:
Explosives and weapons detection............... 23,675,000 33,179,000 23,000,000 30,000,000
Airport security technology integration........ 1,000,000 2,530,000 .............. 1,500,000
Aviation security human factors................ 3,124,000 4,603,000 .............. 3,000,000
Aircraft hardening............................. 7,828,000 3,496,000 .............. 3,400,000
------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................... 35,627,000 43,808,000 23,000,000 37,900,000
============================================================
Human factors and aviation medicine:
Flightdeck/maintenance system.................. 16,508,000 11,182,000 15,500,000 11,182,000
Air traffic control/airway facilities human
factors....................................... 11,259,000 10,193,000 10,000,000 10,000,000
Aeromedical research........................... 4,233,000 4,485,000 2,500,000 4,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................... 32,000,000 25,860,000 28,000,000 25,182,000
============================================================
Environment and energy............................. 5,200,000 5,429,000 1,000,000 4,500,000
Innovative/cooperative research.................... 4,800,000 5,160,000 .............. 4,000,000
============================================================
Total........................................ 259,192,000 267,661,000 143,000,000 215,886,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The objectives of and Committee recommendations for the 10
major activities in FAA's Research, Engineering, and
Development Program are discussed below.
system development and infrastructure
Objectives: To provide (1) a systems engineering approach
and benefit/cost analyses to the development of a comprehensive
research, engineering, and development program and (2)
visibility, accountability, coordination, and control of the
research, engineering, and development activities.
The Committee has reduced the $13,551,000 request by
$1,051,000.
The House has made a number of reductions to the system
development and infrastructure line item, including $953,000
associated with advisory committee, and international program
support. The Committee has restored these funds.
Advisory committee.--The Aviation Safety Research Act of
1988 directed FAA to establish an advisory committee to provide
a strategic look at those research and development efforts that
would encourage FAA to take advantage of current technology and
interface with activities being performed with other Government
agencies and research laboratories. The Committee believes that
this is a good use of Federal funds and has restored the
reduction associated with the advisory committee and funding
associated with the work of the requirements and technical
concepts for aviation [RTCA].
FAA Technical Center--Human Factors Laboratory.--The House
has deleted the administration's request of $3,798,000
associated with a budget realignment treatment of resources of
the FAA technical center. The Committee fully funds the
administration request.
Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development.--The
Committee supports the House position which maintains at the
1995 level the amount of resources for the Mitre support
contract.
capacity and air traffic management technology
Objectives: To ensure that air traffic management
operations safety is maintained and then improved, to increase
system capacity and utilization of existing airspace and
airport resources, and to accommodate greater user flexibility
and efficiency.
Air traffic management technology.--The House has reduced
the air traffic management technology category by $9,875,000.
The Committee believes that restoration of these funds is
necessary to avoid delays in the development of new traffic
flow management capabilities for the air traffic control
system. New flow management is necessary to appreciate fuel
savings for air carriers and to support continued development
high altitude routing systems. In addition, the Committee
believes a real-time operational prototype system is necessary
to provide FAA traffic managers with simulation capabilities to
monitor and assess air carrier proposals regarding flight
patterns and schedules and safe adoption of the free flight
concept, as well as conflict resolution strategies.
Oceanic Automation Program.--The House has included
$2,470,000 below what was requested for the Oceanic Automation
Program. The Committee does not believe that the requested
funding for this program is necessary at this particular time,
and agrees with the House allowance. However, the Committee
expects that FAA will continue to support the data link
prototype system being installed in the Oakland center.
Terminal air traffic control automation [TATCA].--The House
has recommended transferring $15,624,000 for the terminal air
traffic control automation project to the ``Facilities and
equipment'' account under the traffic flow management line
item, and has directed the FAA to accelerate the center TRACON
automation system program. The Committee agrees with the House
recommendation in this area.
Runway incursion reduction.--The House has eliminated all
funding under the ``Research and development'' account for the
runway incursion reduction program, and recommends that these
funds be used under the ``Facilities and equipment'' account
line item AMASS. The Committee is concerned that a transfer of
this funding under facilities and equipment would delay new
communications and surveillance capabilities associated with
automation improvements for surface traffic management. New
nonradar solutions and evaluations are needed, and the
Committee believes that if these funds are transferred to the
``Facilities and equipment'' account, the surface management
advisor program would not be given the priority the Committee
believes it should have. Therefore, the Committee
recommendation is to restore $8,000,000 to the runway incursion
reduction program.
System capacity planning and improvements.--The Committee
has provided $12,000,000 for system capacity, planning, and
improvements, which is virtually the fiscal year 1995 level.
Cockpit technology.--The House has reduced the
administration's request under the cockpit technology by
$1,766,000 due to higher priorities than the TCAS-IV research.
The Committee has restored funding to this line item, believing
that work is necessary on the software and logic development
for TCAS-II avionics now operating in a significant number of
aircraft. The Committee has, however, slightly reduced the
request due to budget considerations.
General Aviation and Vertical Flight Technology Program.--
The Committee has provided $2,600,000 for the Vertical Flight
Program.
Modeling analysis and simulation.--The Committee believes
that under the House's reduction, critical support for FAA's
free flight initiative would be reduced. Free flight is a
technique supported by the Committee and by U.S. air carriers
in general. Therefore, the Committee has provided $4,000,000
for modeling analysis and simulation.
Future airway facilities technology.--The House has
eliminated funding for this activity. The administration
believes that the House reduction will result in total
curtailment of R&D activities regarding the operational infra
structure. The Committee believes that this research is
operationally driven and can safely be deferred.
communications, navigation, and surveillance
Objectives: To develop and exploit high-quality
communications, navigation, and surveillance services and make
them available anywhere on the surface of the Earth, using
satellite and data-link technologies when they are cost
effective.
Communications.--The Committee agrees with the House's
reduction in the communications line item to $10,000,000. The
Committee believes that, under the funding provided, sufficient
funding is available for the FAA to go forward on the
aeronautical data link communications and aeronautical data
link applications initiatives.
Navigation.--The House has provided $5,963,000 below the
amount requested by the administration. The Committee has
provided the requested amount for the navigation line item. The
Committee is concerned that, under the House's reduction,
important navigation initiatives such as the local area
augmentation system, the wide area augmentation system, the GPS
interference analysis, and the GPS safety notification system
for pilots would be jeopardized, and, therefore, has provided
the full amount requested for this line item.
weather
Objectives: To improve the timeliness and accuracy of
weather forecasting in order to enhance flight safety, increase
system capacity, improve flight efficiency, reduce air traffic
control [ATC] and pilot workload, improve flight planning, and
increase productivity.
The Committee has provided the full amount of $6,493,000
requested by the administration and provided in the House
allowance for the Weather Program.
airport technology
Objectives: To provide new and improved standards,
criteria, and guidelines to plan, design, construct, operate,
and maintain the Nation's airports, heliports, and vertiports.
The House has reduced funding for the airport technology
request from the requested level of $9,278,000 to $1,000,000
stating that such activities can be performed by the public
sector. The Committee has restored funding to approximately
last year's level of $8,000,000.
aircraft safety technology
Objectives: To develop technologies, standards, and
maintenance regulations that maintain or improve aircraft
safety in an evolving, changing, and demanding aviation
environment.
Aircraft systems fire safety.--This line item has been
merged with related activities in a new line item, fire
research and safety.
Advanced materials/structural safety.--The Committee has
restored $500,000 to the House allowance for advanced
materials/structural safety. The Committee continues to support
advanced composite materials research which leads to the
support of certification and airworthiness regulations in the
material and structural area.
Propulsion and fuel systems.--The Committee has restored
the fiscal year 1996 budget request for propulsion and fuel
systems, which the House zeroed out in its recommendation.
Propulsion and fuel systems line items support engine
reliability and alternative fuels research, including the
engine titanium consortium which conducts research centered on
finding improved methods for detecting cracks and imperfections
in aircraft engines to prevent in-flight engine breakup and
failures.
Flight safety atmospheric hazards research.--The Committee
has provided the full amount requested to continue the
development of ice detector systems, the development of anti-
icing materials, and to continue research on the effect of ice
contamination on airplane stalls.
The Committee notes with approval FAA's current initiatives
in the area of aircraft icing. Recent events have heightened
awareness of this issue, particularly the serious nature of
icing caused by supercooled large droplets. The Committee
believes that this area should continue to receive priority
consideration. An important element of improved safety in icing
conditions is providing pilots with better tools for detecting
ice. The research and testing programs underway at the Atlantic
City Technical Center on wide area ice detection technology
have already shown great promise. In order to evaluate the
effectiveness of such technology at smaller regional airports
the Committee directs the FAA to add the Rhinelander-Oneida
County Airport as a test site for evaluation of innovative
deicing technology. The Committee strongly recommends continued
funding to make this advanced safety technology available to
pilots as soon as possible.
Aging aircraft.--The Committee has provided the full amount
requested for FAA's research in the aging aircraft area. This
restores $6,415,000 above the House allocation. This research
supports airborne data monitoring systems, corrosion fatigue
research, and the Center for Aviation Systems Reliability and
the Center of Excellence, which conduct research in these
areas. The Committee is concerned that passenger enplanements
are exceeding the current U.S. air carrier supply, and that
carriers are relying increasingly on older-aged aircraft, which
leads to increasing risk of failure, and has, therefore,
provided the full amount requested in this area.
General aviation renaissance.--The Committee agrees with
the House's reduction in the general aviation renaissance line
item.
Cabin safety.--The Committee agrees with the House's
reduction in the cabin safety line item. The FAA has appealed
this cut, believing that the private sector would not fund
research in this area. However, the Committee concurs with the
House position, which holds that such research on airworthiness
should and could be done by the private sector.
system security technology
Objectives: To enhance the security of passengers and crews
in all aspects of aircraft, airports, and related ATC
facilities by developing systems that prevent or deter
terrorist activities.
Explosives and weapons detection.--The Committee has
restored $7,000,000 to the House allowance, which still leaves
a cut of $3,179,000 below the administration's request for the
explosives and weapons detection line item. This activity is
used to conduct research in trace and bulk detection of
explosives and cargo screening. Given the increased terrorist
threats and attacks, the Committee believes restoration of the
requested funding is warranted.
Airport security technology integration.--The Committee has
provided $1,500,000 for airport security technology
integration. This line item supports computer and simulation
tools used to plan integration of security systems in airports,
so they will be better able to defend efficiently against
terrorist attacks. The amount provided by the Committee is
$500,000 above the fiscal year 1995 level.
Aviation security human factors.--The Committee has
provided $3,000,000 for the aviation security human factors
research, which is approximately the amount provided in fiscal
year 1995. Research in this area is used for domestic passenger
profiling, screener training systems, and explosives detection
system deployment support. The Committee believes that
eliminating funding for this category as proposed by the House
would delay recent progress for human systems integration in
new security technologies.
Aircraft hardening.--The Committee has provided $3,400,000
for the aircraft hardening activity. The Committee believes
that the House's funding level seriously jeopardizes FAA's
ability to field test hardened cargo containers and to write
final hardening specifications on containers and aircraft
fuselages.
human factors and aviation medicine
Objectives: To establish ways to improve the effectiveness
of human performance in the operation of the aviation system
and to seek better methods for preventing human error,
accidents, and incidents.
Flight deck/maintenance system.--The House has added
$4,318,000 above that requested in the flight deck, human
factors, and aviation medicine category. The Committee believes
that the funding requested by the administration is sufficient
to continue its existing work with NASA and DOD under the
national plan for aviation human factors.
Air traffic control/airway facilities human factors.--The
Committee has provided the same level as the House,
$10,000,000, for the human factors research in air traffic
control and airway facilities, which is slightly less, by
$193,000, than the requested amount.
Aeromedical research.--The Committee has restored the
aeromedical research funding to $4,000,000, which is slightly
less than the fiscal year 1995 level. However, under this
level, the Committee expects that FAA will be able to
adequately maintain its capability at the Civil Aeromedical
Institute for Forensic Toxicological and Accident Research, and
expects there will be no diminution in protection/survival
related research.
environment and energy
Objectives: To protect the environment, conserve energy,
and keep the U.S. air transportation industry strong and
competitive.
Environment and energy.--The Committee has provided
$4,500,000 for the environment and energy line item. Under the
House's reduction, the Committee was concerned that serious
delays would be caused in environmental assessments, primarily
in the noise area; that research and noise reduction technology
would be delayed; and that necessary research in engine
emissions reduction and control would be seriously curtailed,
if not terminated. Therefore, the Committee has provided
$3,500,000 above the House allowance for the environment and
energy line item.
innovative/cooperative research
Objectives: To maximize the total effectiveness of
research, engineering, and development by incorporating the
efforts of other Government agencies, the industry, and
universities.
The Committee has provided $4,000,000 for innovative
cooperative research.
Innovative/cooperative research.--The House has eliminated
all funding for the innovative/cooperative research line item.
This elimination would terminate all FAA research and
development partnerships with industry, academia, and other
government agencies. The Committee believes that funding is
necessary in this area so that FAA will be able to best
leverage scarce resources, and get the best return for its
investment. This is a key funding source for cooperative
research and development agreements [CRDA's] and small business
innovation research contracts. The Committee has restored
$4,000,000 for this activity.
Grants-in-Aid for Airports
(Liquidation of Contract Authorization)
(Airport and Airway Trust Fund)
(including rescission of contract authorization)
Appropriations, 1995....................................($1,500,000,000)
Budget estimate, 1996................................... (1,500,000,000)
House allowance......................................... (1,500,000,000)
Committee recommendation................................ (1,500,000,000)
(Rescission)
(-5,000,000)
The Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended,
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 $1,500,000,000 in liquidating cash
for grants-in-aid for airports. This is consistent with the
Committee's obligation limitation on airport grants.
limitation on obligations
The administration proposed to replace the Airport Grant
Program with funding from the new Unified Transportation
Infrastructure Investment Program [UTIIP]. Airport projects
previously funded in this account will be eligible for funding
through UTIIP. Additionally, the UTIIP account specifically
includes $218,027,822 to honor the fiscal year 1996 payments
for existing airport letters of intent.
The bill also includes a limitation on obligations for
airport development and planning grants which are financed
under contract authority. The limitation recommended for fiscal
year 1996 is $1,250,000,000. This is $350,000,000 below the
House allowance and $250,000,000 below the budget request.
The recommended amount is intended to be sufficient to
continue the important tasks of enhancing airport safety,
ensuring that airport standards can be met, maintaining
existing airport capacity, and developing additional capacity.
The Committee notes that a sizable alternative source of
funding is now 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 3, 1995, 217 airports have been approved for
collection of PFC's in the amount of $11,000,000,000. During
calendar year 1994, airports collected $851,000,000 in PFC
charges and $936,000,000 is estimated to be collected in
calendar year 1995. Of the airports collecting PFC's, over 20
percent collected about 85 percent of the total, and all of
these are either large or medium hub airports. DOT estimates
that airports will collect between $750,000,000 and
$780,000,000 in 1996, depending on the number of applications
received and approved.
While large hubs collected most of the PFC funds during the
last 2 years, small airports benefited significantly from these
collections because of the redistribution mechanism in the PFC
legislation. According to the provision, an airport collecting
PFC's must have its apportionment under the AIP grant program
reduced by 50 percent of the forecast PFC revenue, but the
reduction cannot be more than one-half of the airport's earned
apportionment for that fiscal year. FAA then redistributes
these returned trust funds primarily to small airports. For
example, in fiscal 1995 $88,000,000 that would have been
distributed as grants based on passenger enplanements to PFC-
charging airports is being redistributed to small airports. In
1996, FAA expects this redistributed amount to increase to
about $101,800,000 under an obligation ceiling of
$1,500,000,000. In redistributing these funds, FAA provides
three-quarters of the total to the small airport fund, another
12.5 percent is available to small hubs, and the remaining 12.5
percent goes to FAA's discretionary account that can be
provided to small, medium, or large airports. Therefore, even
though the Committee's recommendation is $1,250,000,000 small
airports should not be affected because they will have access
in 1996 to this additional amount. And, as noted above, many
other airports are supplementing their grant funds with PFC's.
AIP FUNDING FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget estimate House allowance Committeerecommendation \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation limitation....................... $1,500,000,000 $1,600,000,000 \1\ $1,250,000,000
Entitlements:
Primary airports........................... 444,131,590 483,594,288 348,137,445
Cargo airports (3.5 percent)............... 41,968,276 48,743,796 27,414,413
Alaska supplemental........................ 10,528,980 10,528,980 10,528,980
States (12 percent)........................ 165,560,171 181,101,651 128,280,834
Carryover entitlements..................... 100,000,000 100,000,000 100,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal entitlements.................... 762,189,017 823,968,715 614,361,673
================================================================
Discretionary set asides:
Noise (12.5 percent)....................... 172,458,511 188,647,553 133,625,869
Reliever airports (5 percent).............. 68,983,405 75,459,021 \1\ 50,000,000
Commercial service (1.5 percent)........... 20,695,021 22,637,706 16,035,104
System planning (0.75 percent)............. 10,347,511 11,318,853 8,017,552
Military airport program (2.5 percent)..... 34,491,702 37,729,511 \1\ 20,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal discretionary set asides........ 306,976,150 335,792,645 227,678,526
================================================================
Returned entitlements: Small airport/hub fund.. 105,834,833 115,238,641 82,959,801
Other discretionary:
Capacity/safety/security/noise............. 243,750,000 243,750,000 243,750,000
Remaining discretionary.................... 81,250,000 81,250,000 81,250,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal other discretionary............. 325,000,000 325,000,000 325,000,000
================================================================
Total entitlement........................ 762,189,017 823,968,715 614,361,673
Total discretionary...................... 737,810,983 776,031,285 635,638,327
----------------------------------------------------------------
Grand total.............................. 1,500,000,000 1,600,000,000 1,250,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Relievers capped at $50,000,000 and MAP capped at $20,000,000
Note: Based on preliminary enplanement data for calendar year 1994.
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
AIP 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.
The Committee appreciates the complexity of assessing a
project's impact on systemwide capacity but believes that FAA
should do its best in this regard before committing future AIP
funds under a LOI. Further, with reduced discretionary funding
in fiscal year 1995, FAA will have difficulty both meeting LOI
commitments and funding other needed projects. This is due, in
part, to FAA planning LOI funding commitments on the basis of a
higher level of discretionary funds.
The Committee in the past was concerned that FAA had not
exercised sufficient control over the use of LOI's. This means
that some commitments could be in jeopardy if AIP funding
levels are significantly reduced. Accordingly, to maintain
program integrity and ensure LOI commitments are met, the
Committee repeats its recommendation that FAA be granted the
authority to award new LOI's only after (1) scheduled LOI
payments fall to less than 50 percent of AIP discretionary
funds and (2) FAA has improved its ability to estimate airport
development projects' impact on systemwide capacity.
The letters of intent program assumes the following fiscal
year 1996 grant allocations:
California: Sacramento Metropolitan..................... $4,780,000
Colorado: Denver International.......................... 29,911,145
Florida:
Daytona Beach Regional.............................. 1,700,000
Jacksonville International.......................... 4,977,019
Georgia: Savannah International......................... 2,000,000
Illinois: Scott AFB (reliever).......................... 14,000,000
Indiana: Indianapolis International..................... 11,113,622
Kentucky:
Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky........................ 17,300,000
Standiford Field, Louisville........................ 15,900,000
Louisiana: New Orleans International.................... 11,800,000
Michigan: Detroit Metropolitan.......................... 15,500,000
Mississippi: Golden Triangle Regional................... 400,000
Nevada: Reno Cannon International....................... 6,500,000
New York: Greater Buffalo International................. 9,558,650
Rhode Island: Theodore F. Green State................... 6,500,000
South Carolina: Hilton Head............................. 532,293
Tennessee:
Nashville International............................. 2,180,000
Memphis International............................... 13,750,000
Texas:
Austin (new)........................................ 11,430,113
Dallas/Fort Worth International..................... 12,500,000
Miller International................................ 594,980
Virginia:
Washington Dulles International..................... 1,500,000
Washington National................................. 23,600,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 218,027,822
Two sources exist to fund FAA's commitment to an airport's
LOI. One is the discretionary portion of FAA's airport
improvement program appropriation, and the other is the
entitlement funding that an airport receives through the AIP on
the basis of its passenger enplanements. Even though FAA
expects an airport receiving an LOI to put all of its
entitlement funding toward the project being funded by the LOI,
this source provides only about one-quarter of the annual LOI
funding. Thus, of the $218,000,000 that FAA has committed to
LOI's during fiscal year 1996, the Committee estimates that
approximately $170,400,000 will need to come from the AIP's
discretionary limitation. As shown in the preceding AIP funding
chart under both the House and Senate levels would provide
sufficient discretionary funding to cover LOI's; however,
little flexibility is left to fund other high-priority capacity
projects not included under an LOI.
Applications are pending for capacity enhancement projects
which would, if constructed, significantly reduce congestion
and delay. These projects require multiyear funding
commitments. The Committee recommends that the FAA enter into
letters of intent for multiyear funding of such capacity
enhancement projects. While letters of intent would be subject
to future appropriations, they represent an important component
of the Airport Improvement Program. The Committee understands
that an application for a letter of intent is pending for
construction of a new dependent runway for Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport. Subject to the completion of the
required environmental review, the Committee supports the
expeditious consideration of SEA-TAC's application for the
letter of intent with the project sponsor for construction of
the runway project.
Northwest Arkansas Regional airport.--In fiscal year 1995,
the Committee endorsed the expeditious consideration of a
multiyear letter of intent for the Northwest Arkansas Regional
Airport. The Committee understands that the Federal Aviation
Administration is now considering the issuance of master
agreements for multiyear development projects. The Committee
still encourages the Federal Aviation Administration to enter
into a letter of intent or master agreement that allows for
future reimbursement of all allowable costs related to the
approved project. The region's existing airport can not meet
future demands because of the area's profound growth in
population and economic activity.
Huntsville International Airport.--The Committee is
disappointed that the FAA has not provided a discretionary
grant to the Huntsville International Airport for an urgently
needed runway-taxiway rehabilitation project during this fiscal
year, despite the Committee's expressed interest in having this
project fully funded through a discretionary improvement funds
allocation this year. Given that this project is a high FAA
priority and has been deemed an eligible recipient for a
discretionary grant by the administration, the Committee
disapproves of FAA's delay in funding the project and FAA's
attempt to earmark the airport's regular entitlement funds for
the taxiway portion of the project. Therefore, the Committee
directs the FAA to provide $2,100,000 in discretionary
improvement grant funding to the Huntsville International
Airport for the project no later than the end of the first
quarter of fiscal year 1996.
Tunica, MS, airport.--The Committee commends to FAA's
attention the recent developments in the region around the
Tunica, MS, airport. Given recent economic developments in the
area, major infrastructure improvements and expansion are
necessary to keep up with current and projected traffic, and
the Committee directs FAA to work with officials of the airport
on future capital improvements.
Midland International Airport.--The Committee is aware of
the Federal Aviation Administration's past practices on
issuance of letters-of-intent to qualified airports which
assists them in obtaining financing for physical improvements
as part of the Airport Improvements Program [AIP]. The
Committee believes letters-of-intent serve a useful role in
allowing airports to more effectively plan long-term financing.
The Committee urges consideration of an AIP application from
the Midland International Airport for the construction of a new
terminal to enhance capacity and promote safety by increasing
ramp areas and resolving a control tower line-of-sight problem,
and encourages the FAA to work with Midland officials either in
the letter-of-intent process or an alternative mechanism on
these improvements.
Philadelphia International Airport [PHL].--The Committee
further understands that an application for a letter of intent
for multiyear funding of $120,000,000 is pending for
construction of a new parallel runway for Philadelphia
International Airport, which is needed to provide a level of
service sufficient for residents and businesses in
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware. The airport has
demonstrated that its local share of the project costs will
consist of airport revenue bonds and a steady stream of
passenger facility charges. Given that capacity constraints
have caused considerable delays at the airport, leading to
annual costs in the millions of dollars, the Committee calls
for the FAA to enter into a letter of intent with the project
sponsor for construction of the runway project.
Aircraft Purchase Loan Guarantee Program
(limitation on borrowing authority)
Appropriations, 1995.................................... ($9,970,000)
Budget estimate, 1996................................... (1,600,000)
House allowance......................................... (1,600,000)
Committee recommendation................................ (1,600,000)
The Aircraft Purchase Loan Guarantee Program was
established pursuant to Public Law 85-307, as amended, which
gave the Secretary of Transportation the authority to provide
Government guarantees of private loans to certain air carriers
for the purchase of modern aircraft and equipment when
financing was not otherwise available on reasonable terms. The
authority to provide new guarantees expired on October 23,
1983.
The accompanying bill contains authority for the Secretary
of Transportation to borrow funds from the Treasury to cover
the costs of aircraft loan defaults by air carriers on existing
loans.
This program is continuing only for the purpose of making
payments to private lenders upon default of existing loans by
air carriers. No new loan guarantees are expected.
The Committee has included bill language, as requested,
that permits the Secretary of Transportation to borrow up to
$1,600,000 from the Secretary of the Treasury to pay for
defaulted loans.
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
Summary of Fiscal Year 1996 Program
The principal missions of the Federal Highway
Administration are: administration, in cooperation with the
States, of the Federal-aid Highway Construction Program,
including the interstate, primary, bridge, secondary, and urban
programs; regulation and enforcement of Federal requirements
relating to the safety of operation and equipment of commercial
motor carriers engaged in interstate or foreign commerce; and
governing the safety in movement over the Nation's highways of
dangerous cargoes such as explosives, flammables, and other
hazardous material.
Under the Committee recommendation, a total program level
of $19,439,432,000 would be provided for the activities of the
Federal Highway Administration for fiscal year 1996.
The following table summarizes the fiscal year 1995 program
levels, the fiscal year 1996 budget estimates, the House
allowance, and the Committee's recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
Program 1995 program 1996 budget Houseallowance Committee
level \1\ estimate recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on general operating expenses....... (521,796) \2\ (689,486) (495,381) (548,434)
Highway-related safety grants \3\.............. 10,800 10,000 10,000 13,000
Rescission................................. -20,000 .............. .............. ...............
(Liquidation of contract authority)........ (10,800) (10,000) (10,000) (13,000)
Federal-aid highways \3\....................... 17,160,000 \4\ 200,000 18,000,000 17,000,000
Exempt Federal-aid obligations (CA)............ 2,589,803 80,000 2,311,932 2,333,591
(Liquidation of contract authority)........ (17,000,000) (19,200,000) (19,200,000) (19,200,000)
Right-of-way revolving fund \5\................ 42,500 .............. .............. ...............
Motor carrier safety grants \3\................ 74,000 85,000 79,150 75,000
(Liquidation of contract authority)........ (73,000) (68,000) (68,000) (68,000)
Motor carrier safety \6\....................... 50,000 .............. .............. ...............
Other highway programs......................... 366,055 .............. .............. 39,500
Rescission................................. -12,004 .............. .............. ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................... 20,211,154 375,000 20,401,082 19,461,591
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes reductions pursuant to sections 323, 330, and 331 of Public Law 103-331.
\2\ Proposed for funding as a drawdown within UTIIP.
\3\ Obligation limitation on contract authority.
\4\ Obligation limitation on demonstration programs; balance of program is replaced by UTIIP.
\5\ Limitation on direct loans, included in totals.
\6\ Proposed for separate funding contingent upon enactment of UTIIP; included within limitation on general
operating expenses in 1995.
Limitation on General Operating Expenses
Appropriations, 1995.................................... ($521,796,000)
Budget estimate, 1996..................................\1\ (639,486,000)
House allowance......................................... (495,381,000)
Committee recommendation................................ (548,434,000)
\1\ Included under UTIIP.
The limitation on general operating expenses controls
spending for virtually all the salaries, expenses, and research
and development programs of the Federal Highway Administration.
The Committee recommends that a limitation of $548,434,000
be provided for salaries and expenses of the Federal Highway
Administration.
The following table reflects the Committee's
recommendation, the House allowance, and that requested by the
administration.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Program 1996 budget House Committee
estimate allowance recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses..... 261,225 304,714 253,525
Motor carrier safety........ ( \1\ ) ( \2\ ) 46,000
Contract programs:
Highway research,
development, and
technology............. 79,706 55,772 58,574
Intelligent vehicle/
highway systems
research............... 238,579 93,250 139,179
Technology assessment
and deployment......... 17,241 11,622 14,622
Long-term pavement
performance............ 10,701 8,489 10,500
National Highway
Institute.............. 4,369 4,369 4,369
Local Technical
Assistance Program..... 3,015 3,015 3,015
International
transportation......... 500 500 500
Technical assistance--
Russia................. 400 400 400
Minority business....... 10,000 10,000 10,000
OJT support services.... 5,000 ............ 5,000
Truck dynamic test
facility............... 1,500 750 750
Transportation
investment analysis.... 2,250 ............ ..............
Cost allocation study
(truck size and weight) 5,000 2,500 2,000
Accountwide adjustment.. ............ -5,252 ..............
-------------------------------------------
Total limitation...... 639,486 495,381 548,434
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The administration's request funds motor carrier safety
administrative expenses in a separate account at $50,000,000.
\2\ The House includes motor carrier safety administrative expenses
within the overall FHWA administrative expenses.
Administrative Expenses
Because of budgetary limitations, the Committee's allowance
includes the following reductions from the budget request:
Information resource management......................... -$2,000,000
Equipment............................................... -1,500,000
Travel and transportation of persons.................... -2,000,000
Career development program.............................. -1,000,000
Transportation of things................................ -200,000
Other category
-1,000,000
Motor Carrier Safety Operations
The Committee recommends $46,000,000 for motor carrier
safety operations, not including the funding of $7,774,000 for
research which is included in the research, development, and
technology line.
The Committee's recommendation includes $4,800,000 for ADP
deployment and information processing, which is $300,000 more
than requested. Required reductions may not be taken from any
field activity directly supporting the conduct of compliance
reviews or reviews of CDL implementation. OMC shall minimize
the amount of funds spent on providing educational materials
and technical assistance on the Federal motor carrier safety
regulations to nongovernmental entities. None of the positions
proposed for elimination shall be from positions allocated for
personnel who conduct compliance reviews or are regulatory
specialists. When OMC responds satisfactorily to the
suggestions and directives identified in this report, the
Committee will consider funding the amount requested for this
program.
The Committee acknowledges several substantial
accomplishments recently achieved by the OMC. For example, OMC
has instituted an effective accident countermeasures program
that provides targeted advice to specific motor carriers; has
improved its safety fitness rating methodology to incorporate
more performance-based information; and has designed and
ensured successful testing of the ASPEN pen-based computer
system, which has been well received by the MCSAP community.
This Agency has also created an analysis unit which will
provide the necessary data on which to base future regulatory
actions and program changes. In addition, OMC has vigorously
pursued the Committee's directive to establish 200 MCSAP sites
equipped with the latest ITS technology by mid-1997. The
Committee is most pleased with the progress of the inspection
selection system and recognizes the substantial contribution
that various members of the MCSAP community and the University
of North Dakota made in the development of this software. The
recent truck and bus safety summit, which was sponsored by OMC,
has yielded substantial input to help guide OMC's future
program.
There are, however, numerous areas of concern regarding the
OMC program which demand increased and immediate attention by
the FHWA Administrator. These include the following:
One, although FHWA has identified more than 70 problems or
shortcomings that interfere with full and effective
implementation of the Commercial Drivers License [CDL] Program,
these issues persist and will require more definitive actions.
Some actions will require legislation which has not yet been
sought by FHWA. As long as these remaining problems exist, FHWA
and the States will not be able to ensure that each commercial
driver only has one license and that convictions for certain
unsafe driving actions adversely affects CDL issuance or
suspension--basic tenets of the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety
Act of 1986. Furthermore, 2 years ago, the Committee asked for
specific data to assess CDL effectiveness on a State-by-State
basis. The Committee still awaits this information.
Before next year's hearing, the Committee directs FHWA,
with substantial input and consultation with the American
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators and NHTSA, to
submit to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees a
detailed report identifying each of the constraints to more
effective implementation of the CDL Program; specifying
regulatory, administrative and legislative changes that are
needed to address each of these concerns; and presenting a
timetable for action to address each constraint. To help
address some of these concerns, the Committee's allowance
includes $150,000 which shall be spent to work with judges,
prosecutors, and court systems to improve CDL implementation.
Two, for more than 5 years, the Committee has stressed the
importance of a vigorous but fair motor carrier safety
enforcement program. A year or so after the 1990 Motor Carrier
Safety Act, FHWA responded with substantial improvements in the
effectiveness and productivity of its enforcement program. But
more recently, FHWA submitted information that indicates the
vitality and vigor of its enforcement activities may be waning.
For example, a comparison of fiscal year 1994 to fiscal year
1993 data shows that the number of enforcement cases closed
decreased, the amount of civil penalties assessed and collected
decreased, and the number of compliance reviews conducted by
Federal safety specialists decreased. The Committee is
especially displeased that the number of reviews of hazardous
materials carriers and shippers also has dropped precipitously
during the last few years. Unfortunately, OMC has disbanded its
hazardous materials unit in headquarters, leaving less central
leadership for the 30 or more Hazmat safety specialists and
managers in the field.
While this decrease in the vitality of OMC's enforcement
presence was occurring, the number of deaths resulting from
crashes involving trucks weighing 10,000 pounds or more has
been increasing, going from 4,767 in 1992, 4,849 in 1993, to
5,112 in 1994. The number of non-fatal injuries from crashes
involving these trucks also increased from 109,000 in 1992 to
133,000 in 1994. With roughly one-third of the vehicles/or
drivers declared out-of-service for critical safety violations
at the roadside, and with about 40 percent of rated carriers
unable to achieve a satisfactory safety rating, there is no
excuse for anything less than a vigorous enforcement program.
The Committee repeats the finding of Congress in the Motor
Carrier Safety Act of 1990 which stated, `` relying primarily
upon voluntary compliance methods has not resulted in an
acceptable level of commercial motor vehicle safety.''
Although the extraction of civil penalties is not an end
onto itself, there is substantial documentation that this
method of promoting compliance gets the attention of many of
those truck and bus companies that violate the Federal motor
carrier safety regulations. The Committee is concerned that the
benefit to be derived from this enforcement tool is not being
maximized. OMC needs to remember that a strong civil penalty
program helps promote compliance with the safety requirements
and reduces risks to the public.
In response to concerns raised in last year's report, the
FHWA Administrator wrote the Committee stating that
``Enforcement casework from Federal staff reviews has likely
reached a peak for a variety of reasons * * *.'' The Committee
vigorously questions whether FHWA should be willing to settle
for stagnation in its enforcement workload in order to
accommodate the achievement of other missions.
The Committee believes that too much time spent on total
quality management task forces, education and technical
assistance on regulatory requirements, economic regulatory
compliance issues related to the international fuel tax
agreement and the International Registration Program,
unnecessary training unrelated to the basic missions of the
Agency, and lengthy strategic planning sessions are interfering
with the fundamental mission of OMC. The Office of the
Secretary and the FHWA Administrator are urged to reduce
unnecessary demands on OMC that interfere with the conduct of
basic safety functions, especially those related to enforcement
activities.
Time spent on these secondary activities needs to be
balanced with more time spent on the primary safety/enforcement
mission of the Agency. Accordingly, the Committee directs OMC
to maximize the safety and compliance benefits derived from the
work of OMC safety specialists. This strategy must include an
increase in the number of more effective compliance reviews.
The Committee reminds the Administrator that the Motor Carrier
Safety Acts of 1984 and 1990 are clear legislative statements
of the congressional intent that enforcement is a critical
function of OMC.
FHWA stated to the Committee that ``* * * our efforts
should be measured by improvements in safety.'' The Committee
would like to see quantitative evidence next year of
improvements in safety statistics and a revitalization of a
much stronger enforcement program. The Committee requests the
Associate Administrator for Motor Carriers to review critical
positions in the field and in headquarters to examine whether
additional positions can be assigned to conduct an increased
number of targeted compliance reviews and other effective
safety strategies, to consider how the hazardous materials
program can be revitalized, and to evaluate the use of field
staff time on activities other than CDL implementation, MCSAP,
and compliance reviews.
The Committee strongly believes that the best customer
service that OMC can provide is to ensure that the public
suffers less of the tragic results of crashes involving
commercial motor vehicles.
In fairness to OMC, it should be noted that this Agency is
spending a substantial amount of time working with its State
partners to improve their activities. This training activity
may reduce the productivity of Federal personnel in the short
term, but over the long term, it improves the Federal/State
partnership in commercial motor vehicle safety. OMC also can
document many cases in which a motor carrier that was subject
to intensive scrutiny or enforcement actions by OMC improved
its safety rating and had a reduction in accident frequency.
Three, some OMC regional directors are dedicated toward
implementing a vigorous enforcement program, others appear to
be less inclined. Data submitted by FHWA show that three of the
regions are issuing more than 90 percent of the compliance or
consent orders and that six of the regions are rarely using
these enforcement tools. The Committee directs FHWA to issue
comprehensive, uniform, and updated guidance for more effective
and uniform implementation of its enforcement program.
Four, although the Committee was assured that FHWA would
use fiscal year 1995 funds to conduct a study on the role of
shippers in promoting noncompliance with the safety
regulations, this contract was postponed without prior notice
to the Committee. Fiscal year 1996 research funds will be used
to support contract work in this area.
Five, despite the 1991 MCSAP reauthorization statute, only
three States conduct onsite reviews of hazardous materials
shippers. Despite encouragement from the Committee, FHWA has
not been persuasive in convincing States to expand the scope of
their coverage to this key component of hazardous materials
transportation safety.
In view of these illustrative concerns, which are probably
symptomatic of an array of problems, the Committee directs
FHWA's Office of Program Review to conduct a comprehensive
review of the functioning and operation of the Office of Motor
Carriers. At a minimum, the following topics should be
considered: the adequacy of the civil penalty process in light
of an increasing number of fatalities and injuries resulting
from crashes involving commercial motor vehicles, ways to
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the compliance
review process, and ways to assign more staff to the field to
increase contact with the commercial motor vehicle industry.
This review and relevant recommendations for improvement should
be submitted to the FHWA Administrator with copies forwarded to
the House and Senate Committee's on Appropriations before June
1996.
FHWA is unlikely for at least 2 or more years to issue
final regulations to revise current hours-of-duty status
(hours-of-service) requirements and address all of the concerns
raised by the NTSB in its recent work on driver fatigue. FHWA
has been working on possible revisions to these regulations
since the 1970's, with an intensified program since the late
1980's. Although the issues involved are indeed complex, the
Committee believes this rulemaking process must be placed on a
definitive timetable. The Committee directs FHWA to issue an
advanced notice of proposed rulemaking dealing with a variety
of fatigue-related issues (including 8 hours of continuous
sleep after 10 hours of driving, loading and unloading
operations, automated and tamper-proof recording devices, rest
and recovery cycles, fatigue and stress in longer combination
vehicles, fitness for duty, and other appropriate regulatory
and enforcement countermeasures for reducing fatigue-related
incidents and increasing driver alertness) no later than March
1, 1996. This ANPRM must be followed by an NPRM within 1 year,
and a final rulemaking or a final decision not to proceed with
additional regulations in this area no later than 2 years
thereafter. FHWA should not expect any substantial funding
increase in its motor carrier research or operations programs
unless satisfactory progress is demonstrated in this area.
highway research, development, and technology
The Committee recommends a total of $58,574,000 to be
distributed as follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget
Activity/program element Program estimate, Houseallowance Committee
level, 1995 1996 recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway research and development:
Safety............................................ 7,768 9,690 8,768 9,790
Materials......................................... 5,451 ........... .............. ..............
Pavements......................................... 7,476 9,283 9,247 10,027
Structures........................................ 6,311 12,486 13,211 13,211
Environment....................................... 5,593 6,481 5,593 5,593
Right-of-way...................................... 429 429 429 429
Policy............................................ 6,681 8,434 5,681 5,681
Planning.......................................... 6,069 7,895 6,069 6,069
Motor carrier..................................... 7,774 9,008 6,774 7,774
NSTC priority projects............................ ........... 16,000 .............. ..............
---------------------------------------------------------
Total, highway research and development......... 53,552 79,706 55,772 58,574
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety.--The Committee recommends $9,790,000 for highway
safety research and development [R&D]. The combination of
various ISTEA and general operating expenses [GOE] funds will
result in a fiscal year 1996 highway safety R&D program of not
less than $13,790,000 of new authority. This amount is derived
by adding $9,790,000 of GOE funds and $4,000,000 for safety R&D
out of the section 6005 program. During fiscal year 1995, FHWA
plans to spend $4,000,000 on safety R&D out of the section 6005
program. Within the funds provided, the Committee recommends
$100,000 to be allocated to a national organization to help
implement ongoing public information and education campaigns
conducted by State and local volunteers working to promote
highway/rail grade crossing safety.
The Committee also supports the development of enhanced
research and demonstration activities into a safety initiative
for older drivers and special user groups. An older drivers
initiative should seek to demonstrate technologies and
practices that improve the driving performance of older drivers
at risk of losing their licenses to operate motor vehicles.
Demonstration activities should be conducted initially in
States which have the highest population of aging citizens for
which driving is their primary means of mobility.
Pavements.--The Committee recommends $10,027,000 for
pavements R&D, including $1,000,000 to advance the use of high
performance concrete as proposed by the National Science and
Technology Council [NSTC]. In addition, the Committee
reiterates its support for research in composite materials and
directs that not less than $1,000,000 be available for a joint
university/industry effort in the area where Federal funding is
privately matched (which could include in-kind contributions).
Structures.--The Committee recommends $13,211,000 for
structures R&D, including $3,000,000 for a project proposed by
the NSTC.
Structures research deals with construction, repair, and
rehabilitation of the highway infrastructure; system management
to increase service life; and structural safety for heavier
traffic loads on highway bridges.
Environment.--The Committee has provided the same level of
funding as provided in fiscal year 1995.
Transportation systems noise prediction.--The Committee
recognizes that transportation systems represent a major source
of community noise. The Department has a continuing
responsibility to monitor the environmental impact of such
noise and provide guidance to States and local communities on
the impact of changing traffic patterns, new construction and
other transportation related noise.
The Committee supports a grant to the National Center for
Physical Acoustics to develop and verify improved models to
predict community noise. The Secretary will establish sources
and scenarios of highest priority to the Department and may
choose to direct the National Center for Physical Acoustics to
apply acoustic or ultrasonic techniques to monitor traffic and/
or pipeline maintenance.
Right-of-way.--The Committee has provided the full amount
requested by the administration.
Policy.--The Committee has provided $5,681,000 for policy
research which is $1,000,000 below the fiscal year 1995 level.
The Committee encourages FHWA to continue its work on private
sector participation in highway financing.
Planning.--The goal of the planning program is to develop
and disseminate improved planning methods, congestion
management procedures, intermodal procedures, statewide
planning methods, and to assist State and local transportation
agencies. The Committee has included $6,069,000, the same as
the fiscal year 1995 level and the House allowance.
Motor carrier.--Because of budgetary limitations and
inadequate justification of portions of the request, the
Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,774,000 for motor
carrier research. The Committee notes the substantial expansion
of this program during the last few years and suggests that a
more careful review of research proposals by experts within and
outside of FHWA is needed. Associated funding such as the ITS/
CVO program and MCSAP R&D also has increased in recent years.
Research projects funded in these areas were previously
included under this category.
In Senate Report 103-150, the Committee complimented OMC
for its first 5-year strategic plan on motor carrier research.
The Committee agrees with the House that an updated plan is
necessary and requests that this plan also review the progress
made against the objectives specified in the first strategic
plan previously submitted to the Committee. A draft plan should
be submitted for review by the National Motor Carrier Advisory
Committee during its September 1996 meeting as well as by other
experts within and outside FHWA for comment. The plan will pay
particular attention to the future course of OMC's human
factors research with special emphasis on driver fatigue. The
plan will identify the scope and nature of future projects in
this area, and present an analysis of how this research lays
the foundation for timely rulemakings and responses to relevant
recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board.
The plan will detail how and when FHWA will complete research
on questions pertaining to work and rest cycles, off-duty time,
and adequate rest in team driving operations. An initial draft
of the final plan shall be submitted to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations before April 1, 1996, and the
final plan shall be submitted no later than February 1, 1997.
The plan also should detail the future direction of the ITS/CVO
program and the MCSAP R&D activities.
Because the scientific basis for future rulemakings must be
sound, FHWA is directed to restructure its fiscal year 1996
research program in such a way as to ensure that not less than
$2,000,000 of the funds appropriated for motor carrier R&D will
be used for work on driver fatigue (including sleep apnea) and
issues associated with possible revisions to regulations
dealing with hours-of-duty status. This allocation would be
consistent with the results of the recent truck and bus safety
summit, which concluded that the No. 1 issue deserving
attention was driver fatigue. This research will include work
on loading/unloading vehicles, fatigue related to local or
short hauls, sleeper berth issues, and driver fitness for duty
testing. Furthermore, OMC is directed to sign a contract before
November 1, 1995, to conduct a research project to determine
the scope, nature, and extent of shipper involvement in
noncompliance with the safety regulations.
The Committee has included $1,500,000 above that requested
for studies:
(a) To identify and field test technological interventions
to offset driver fatigue. The congressionally directed study on
driver fatigue and alertness has generated a wealth of data on
the causes and incidence of both drowsy and alert driving in
truckdrivers, as well as descriptions of numerous devices
purported to alert drivers before the onset of drowsiness. This
study would examine the most promising technologies, test them
in a controlled environment, and field test them in actual
trucking operations. Particular emphasis would be placed on
alerting functions tied to known periods of reduced human
performance.
(b) To determine the extent of various scheduling practices
and their influence on truckdriver fatigue. Cargo delivery
schedules have tended to become less flexible in recent years
as shippers reduce their inventory costs and rely on trucks to
deliver cargo at the exact time it is required. The smallest
delays can induce truckers to drive faster, work longer hours,
or give up sleep in order to make up for lost time. This study
would survey a wide variety of drivers, motor carriers, and
shippers to determine the prevalence of various scheduling
practices, and randomly sample driver logs to determine
correlations between the scheduling practices and hours of
service.
The Committee recognizes that the amount of funds
recommended herein is insufficient for OMC to conduct a study
on freight mobility or to examine routing of hazardous
materials shipments near prisons. The Committee's
recommendation does not include any funds for outreach and
technical assistance to regulated entities, to help complete
program uniformity activities, or to eliminate barriers to
effective intermodal freight transportation.
National Science Transportation Council [NSTC] priority
projects.--The Committee's allowance does not include the
$16,000,000 requested for the NSTC priority projects for three
reasons: (1) budgetary limitations; (2) the need to reserve
funds for FHWA's core infrastructure research, development, and
technology programs; and (3) because this proposal was not
subject to intensive peer review through FHWA's technical
working groups and Research and Technology Executive Board.
Nevertheless, the Committee recognizes the importance of
improving the Nation's physical infrastructure and has
carefully reviewed the request for NSTC priority projects. The
Committee agrees with the House recommendation to incorporate
within the pavements and structures R&D programs funds for two
key research projects that were identified by the NSTC. Thus,
the Committee recommends $1,000,000 to accelerate the
utilization of high-performance concrete. The Committee's
recommendation also includes $3,000,000 as part of the
structures R&D program to construct or use one or more
facilities that would evaluate and calibrate bridge and
pavement nondestructive evaluation [NDE] technologies. FHWA
shall select appropriate sites through competitive evaluations
which consider the technical expertise and experience
associated with the facility, infrastructure resources,
proximity to an established university or research facility
experienced in NDE technologies and composite materials, and
access for Federal staff.
intelligent vehicle highway systems
The administration's request of $238,579,000 for
intelligent vehicle/highway systems [IVHS] included $27,479,000
for research and $22,500,000 for operational testing. The
Committee directs that funding be provided only up to the level
specified for the projects listed below, with funding for other
operational testing projects to be distributed at the
discretion of the Secretary.
The Committee recommends a total of $139,179,000 to be
distributed as follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program level, Budget House Committee
1995 estimate, 1996 allowance recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intelligent vehicle highway system:
Research and development.................... 35,000 27,479 25,000 24,479
Operational tests........................... 22,500 22,500 18,750 45,000
Commercial vehicle operations............... 10,700 10,700 12,700 15,700
Automated highway system.................... 10,000 18,700 10,000 17,500
Advanced technology applications............ 15,000 15,000 2,500 ..............
Priority corridors.......................... 10,000 10,000 .............. 10,000
Crash avoidance research \1\................ .............. 17,200 13,000 15,000
Trailblazer initiative...................... .............. 100,000 .............. ..............
Program and systems support................. 11,300 17,000 11,300 11,500
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total IVHS................................ 114,500 238,579 93,250 139,179
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ $7,500 in 1995 is counted under NHTSA head.
Research and development.--The Committee recommends
$24,479,000 for the IVHS Research and Development Program.
IVHS operational tests.--The Committee recommends
$45,000,000 for the operational test program. Of this amount,
$20,000,000 will be allocated to conduct at least four
different operational tests. In combination, these operational
tests will achieve the following objectives: advance the
results of R&D on traffic management systems including new
approaches for traffic surveillance, provide an opportunity to
test different institutional or partnership arrangements to
further data integration on traffic systems, advance CVO
technology of critical importance to safety, test various
elements of systems architecture or advance standards
development, and fill critical technology needs identified in
the national ITS program plan.
The remainder of these program funds will be used to
initiate two operational tests that will integrate the use of
core infrastructure features, including those dealing with
advanced traffic management systems and advanced traveler
information systems, and simultaneously test the evolving
national systems architecture. Testing the feasibility of
integrating the core infrastructure will yield data on benefits
and costs on ITS services and allow decisionmakers to view real
world demonstrations of multiple ITS technologies working
together. In addition, these operational tests of ITS
integration will provide data to expedite the standards setting
process. For these two projects, FHWA will: (1) require at
least 50 percent cost sharing (hard and soft match); (2)
maximize the use of the private sector and give priority to
innovative financial and operational considerations; and (3)
give priority to areas in which much of the core infrastructure
has been established.
Commercial vehicle operations [CVO].--The Committee's
allowance includes $15,700,000 for the commercial vehicle
operations portion of the national ITS program, which is
$5,000,000 above the administration's request. Consistent with
past guidance, the primary focus of the CVO Program shall be on
promoting the safety of commercial vehicles and drivers. The
Committee's allowance includes the $3,550,000 requested to
improve and operate the SAFER and supporting information
systems, which helps ensure that high-risk motor carriers
receive a priority for inspections. FHWA informed the Committee
that it plans to improve the current carrier-based SAFER system
so that vehicle- and driver-specific inspection information can
be provided to MCSAP officers. To ensure that this happens in a
timely fashion, the Committee's recommendation includes
$1,000,000 to equip at least 50 additional sites across the
Nation by mid-1998 with the SAFER/inspection system that will
provide information on recently declared out-of-service
vehicles and other vehicle- and driver-specific safety data.
This technology will be especially useful in improving
compliance with out-of-service orders.
Within the funds provided, the Committee has included
$6,000,000 for the development and initial pilot testing of the
CVO communications infrastructure. This system, which will
benefit the traveling public, the States, and the motor carrier
industry, will support the transfer and linking of information
systems necessary to facilitate a variety of user services.
These services pertain to fuel tax payments, vehicle
registration, overweight permits, and safety information.
The Joint Program Office and the FHWA must ensure that the
CVO communications infrastructure, also known as the commercial
vehicle information systems network [CVISN], and other
associated systems will provide at the earliest possible date
driver-, car- rier-, and vehicle-specific information to
officers at the roadside. The testing of the system must
include license readers and other cross referencing technology
which will link license plate numbers to U.S. DOT numbers and
provide information on specific vehicles without transponders.
None of the funds provided herein will be used for the purchase
of transponders, except for identification systems that are to
be used exclusively by the enforcement community.
Since automated clearance and one-stop shopping will be of
major benefit to various CVO stakeholders, FHWA should
vigorously pursue cost-sharing opportunities with the private
sector and the States in all stages of this project. FHWA
should consider the feasibility of eventually turning the
entire information network over to a non-Federal entity. FHWA
should be prepared to report on a plan to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations outlining cost-sharing
arrangements and specifying how the operating and maintenance
responsibility for the information system will eventually be
transferred to a non-Federal entity.
The Committee strongly encourages the FHWA, working with
the Joint Program Office, to develop a spending plan that would
allow completion of the development and pilot testing of the
CVO communications infrastructure within a budget ceiling
considerably below the $17,500,000 originally planned.
In order to ensure that only the highest-priority projects
are funded, the Committee's recommendation includes not more
than $250,000 for outreach and institutional activities,
$200,000 for emergency response systems, and no funds for a
study on freight mobility.
Automated highway systems.--The Committee recommends
$17,500,000 for the AHS project. The Committee recognizes the
importance of this long-term project to the Nation's
transportation future and the substantial commitment of the
numerous partners to this project. The amount recommended is
judged adequate to maintain the initial partnership agreement,
but will require an extension of this project beyond the
original 7-year duration.
Advanced technology applications.--The Committee has not
included additional funds for the Advanced Technology
Applications Program. The Committee notes that the Department
of Defense [DOD] supports the Defense Reinvestment and
Conversion Program. DOT must work more closely with the DOD and
the Office of Science and Technology Policy to ensure increased
use of these funds to achieve the purposes of the Defense
Reinvestment and Conversion Program and the National IVHS
Program simultaneously.
Priority corridors.--Four priority corridors have been
designated by DOT based on criteria established in ISTEA: The
I-95 Northeast priority corridor, the Midwest priority
corridor, the Houston priority corridor, and the southern
California priority corridor. Operational tests and other
activities within these corridors will lead to their
development as technical and institutional showcases for IVHS.
The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the priority
corridors program.
IVHS Program and system support.--The Committee recommends
$11,500,000 for ITS program and systems support. Within the
funds provided, training activities shall receive substantial
priority over any outreach activities. The Committee directs
that the total amount of GOE funds spent on institutional
studies be less than $2,500,000.
The Committee requests the FHWA and FTA Administrators and
the Director of the Joint Program Office [JPO] to submit before
October 1, 1996, a letter to both the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees detailing and quantifying the amount
of Federal dollars that have been used to advance projects
using ITS technologies. The documentation supporting this
analysis should delineate the nature of the technologies
deployed or tested. The letter should relate the specific
amount of funds expended for ITS deployment activities to
specific early deployment studies that were sponsored by the
FHWA and to evaluate whether the ITS champion program and the
expert network activity is worth continuing in light of the
findings of this study.
The Committee appreciates the challenge of establishing the
entire complex of standards needed to ensure compatible or
interoperable ITS systems. A great deal of work already has
been expended by FHWA, the ITS AMERICA Standards and Protocols
Committee, and various standards development organizations to
identify, catalog, and advance standards useful for the
national ITS program. Despite these activities, considerably
more work is required to reach agreement on all of the
standards needed for a successful national ITS program.
Title VI of the ISTEA states that the Secretary shall
develop and implement standards and protocols to promote the
widespread use of ITS technology. Thus far, DOT has been
reluctant to use this authority for a variety of reasons. The
Department should rethink how it can strengthen and further
underpin the standards-setting process. For example, the
Committee urges the Department, in cooperation with ITS AMERICA
and the standards-setting community, to take the necessary
steps, when appropriate, to accelerate the issuance of
consensus standards related to message sets and protocols, ATMS
interface standards, and location referencing standards. The
Committee is concerned that without DOT assuming a more
vigorous role, interoperability in ITS systems cannot be
assured. The Department should be prepared to report
substantially more progress leading toward consensus agreement
and issuance of needed standards before next year's markup,
especially if continued support of the ITS program is expected.
Incident management.--The costs of congestion to the Nation
are often estimated at over $100,000,000,000 per year. Various
FHWA-sponsored studies indicate that about 60 percent of
nonrecurring congestion is caused by incidents such as vehicle
crashes and breakdowns. Within the fiscal year 1996 request for
ITS, FHWA intended to fund approximately $400,000 in the area
of incident management and within the request for technology
assessment and deployment, FHWA intended to fund $100,000 to
advance this strategy.
The Committee questions whether the scope of these
activities and amount of funds being allocated to incident
management is adequate relative to the costs of congestion.
FHWA should intensify its involvement in incident management,
which is a key congestion management strategy, and is also
viewed as a central part of the ITS core infrastructure. The
Committee directs that $1,400,000 be used to investigate and
deploy better methods of incident detection and other incident
management technologies and practices, develop case studies of
model incident management programs, facilitate technology
transfer among jurisdictions implementing incident management
programs, and most importantly, provide sufficient information
and guidance to convince State and local officials that an
effective incident management program is a significant tool for
reducing nonrecurring congestion.
Joint Program Office.--The Committee agrees with the House
that stronger steps must be taken to ensure a more cost
conscious and strategically focused program. Consequently, the
Committee directs the Deputy Secretary and the Assistant
Secretary for Budget and Programs to empower the Joint Program
Office [JPO] to: (1) exercise more vigorous control over the
entire ITS budget, (2) review and monitor specific project
objectives, costs, and schedules to accomplish JPO-approved
program milestones, and (3) submit as part of the GOE budget a
consolidated ITS program budget in fiscal year 1997 including
the FTA, NHTSA, RSPA, and FHWA components of the program. The
Committee suggests that these additional measures will increase
the likelihood that the next GAO or inspector general review of
the program will be more favorable than previous reports. The
Committee expects the JPO to continue to monitor the specific
costs and schedule performance of all active ITS projects. This
ongoing process will ensure that the JPO exercises more
stringent fiscal and strategic control over the ITS program.
The Committee wants to ensure that ITS-related reports that
result from the expenditure of public funds are entered
promptly into the National Technical Information Service. The
Director of the JPO working with each of the modal
administrations is expected to ensure that this objective is
achieved.
long term pavement performance [ltpp]
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,500,000
for the LTPP Program, which will be supplemented by $6,000,000
of ISTEA contract moneys. The program is of fundamental
importance in evaluating the impact of traffic loads,
environment, and maintenance strategies on the Nation's highway
system. Well over $100,000,000 has been invested in
constructing test sections and developing a practical and
usable data base.
The program is a cooperative effort with all 50 States and
every Canadian province as active participants. Nearly 1,000
sites with over 2,000 test sections are in the LTPP Program.
All test sections were nominated by State and provincial
participants to represent typical, local pavement types and
environmental conditions, and to provide a statistically sound
test matrix which represented all of the significant variables
in the experiment. Each of these sites represents considerable
investment of local resources as their portion of sharing the
program costs. The LTPP Program is now ready to begin to
deliver the pavement performance analysis for which it was
created. The data and global analysis will provide
participating agencies the ability to: (1) improve the design
guides; (2) compare performance and select among various
pavement design options; (3) improve tools and predictive
models for pavement management decisions; and (4) provide sound
technical data for wide ranging policy decisions. The funds
provided will maintain the performance data collection
activities and conduct the critical analysis work.
technology assessment and deployment
The Committee recommends $14,622,000 for technology
assessment and deployment. The Committee directs that not less
than $3,050,000 of these funds will be allocated toward safety
activities (excluding congestion and incident management) and
not less than $2,400,000 of the section 6005 funds shall be
allocated toward safety applications. The Committee supports
the priority technologies initiative funded under the section
6005 program.
For many years, the Office of Technology Applications [OTA]
has consistently demonstrated a record of accomplishments and
considerable cost effectiveness in its operations. Because of
foreseeable budgetary limitations, the OTA needs to explore
with industry a variety of new approaches to leverage better
the funding of its technology transfer projects. The Committee
requests OTA to work diligently with the private sector to
increase the non-Federal contributions to those activities that
are of direct benefit to commercial entities. OTA will deploy
as soon as possible a strategy to accomplish this objective.
OTA is requested to detail by letter to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations before January 1, 1997, the
scope and nature of the current and planned strategies and
activities to implement the objective of increased leveraging
and cost sharing. To the extent possible, OTA will provide
quantitative data and qualitative assessments that will
demonstrate the extent to which it was successful in
accomplishing this objective. The Committee will carefully
consider the success of these efforts in future funding
decisions regarding the OTA program.
The Committee has reviewed and is pleased with the response
of the OTA to previous directives of the Committee to expedite
innovations to promote motor carrier safety. The Committee
expects OTA to continue providing such assistance to the Office
of Motor Carriers.
In special report No. 244 to the FHWA, the Transportation
Research Board [TRB] concluded that the entire highway industry
needs to address attitudes and practices that stifle
innovation. In light of the TRB findings, the OTA should
vigorously work toward completion of action plans or marketing
approaches to create an improved environment for technical
change and quicker application of the products of research. OTA
should incorporate such strategies into its projects and other
actions to reduce barriers to innovation. Furthermore, before
next year's hearing, the FHWA is requested to submit a letter
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations specifying
the initial results of the FHWA/AASHTO/NCHRP study entitled
``Facilitating the Implementation of Research Findings'' and
subsequent followup actions to be taken by FHWA and the highway
community.
national highway institute
The Committee recommends $4,369,000 for the National
Highway Institute [NHI], the amount requested. NHI has
developed a series of courses to further training, important to
the National IVHS Program. The Committee expects the NHI to
ensure that a good portion of the moneys provided herein will
be used to complete the development of these courses and to
start their delivery as soon as possible.
local technical assistance program
The Committee believes that the Local Technical Assistance
Program centers [LTAP], should play an increased role by
serving as depositories of NHTSA documents and materials
dealing with highway safety. This function is consistent with
the legislative mandate regarding LTAP centers to enhance
programs for the movement of passenger and freight. To this
end, FHWA shall work with NHTSA to provide to each of the LTAP
centers training materials and various publications designed to
benefit State and local officials dealing with highway safety,
including driver behavior challenges. In close cooperation with
the National Association of Governors' Highway Safety
Representatives, FHWA and NHTSA shall jointly issue a
memorandum to the LTAP centers suggesting ways that these
centers could benefit the broader highway safety community. The
feasibility of providing NHTSA-sponsored training courses
through the centers should be explored. This will be especially
important in assisting States with the Safer Communities
Program, a new initiative funded under the section 402 program.
Increased coordination among the LTAP centers, the Governors'
Highway Safety Representatives, and the NHTSA regional offices
should be encouraged. In their annual work plan statements
which will be reviewed by FHWA, each of the LTAP centers shall
detail how the information and training needs of the broader
highway safety community would be strengthened.
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
[ISTEA] of 1991 greatly expanded the audience to be served by
the Local Technical Assistance Program [LTAP]. In addition to
serving governments in small and rural areas, the technical
assistance program was mandated by section 6004 of ISTEA to
provide training and technical assistance to urban areas in the
populations range of 60,000 to 1 million. ISTEA also mandated
the creation of a minimum of two technology transfer centers to
serve American Indian tribal governments. This has greatly
expanded the LTAP audience, which must now address over 38,000
counties, cities, and towns and over 540 tribal governments.
international transportation activities
The Committees recommends $500,000 for the International
Transportation Activities Program. The Committee encourages
FHWA to redouble its efforts to find supplemental funding to
help accomplish the objectives of this program.
technical assistance program for russia
The Committee recommends $400,000 for technical assistance
for Russia and expects that a proportionate amount of these
funds will be provided to other countries formerly part of the
U.S.S.R.
ojt support services
Funding originally authorized by 23 U.S.C. 140(b) was
intended to increase the effectiveness of on-the-job [OJT]
efforts in highway construction crafts in which minorities,
including women, were underrepresented. State managers have
been reluctant to divert funding from the basic construction
program to training. Consequently, minorities have been hired
for the more marginal jobs. The Committee has included the
$5,000,000 requested by the administration for the necessary
coordinated recruitment and training efforts.
TRUCK DYNAMIC TEST FACILITY
FHWA has signed a partnership agreement that will allow the
Agency to have access to a non-Federal test facility. In light
of this cost-saving arrangement, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $750,000, which is 50 percent of the
administration's request.
COST ALLOCATION STUDY (TRUCK SIZE AND WEIGHT)
The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the truck size and
weight and cost allocation studies. The Committee maintains
that FHWA should reduce the number and scope of the topics
proposed for examination in the truck size and weight study,
and focus on those items most likely to be debated during
reauthorization of the highway program. FHWA must ensure that
these studies are available for consideration during the
upcoming debate on highway reauthorization. FHWA indicated that
approximately $8,000,000 will be required to complete both
studies. With the $1,100,000 of fiscal year 1995 policy
research funds that have been applied to these studies, the
Committee believes that the total amount of funds recommended
will be more than sufficient. The Committee directs the FHWA to
complete a major portion of the cost-allocation study before
completing phase III of the truck size and weight study. FHWA
must ensure that policy decisions on truck size and weight
should be formulated within the context of well reasoned cost-
allocation decisions which ensure that each vehicle class, and
each distinct vehicle type within those classes, fairly
shoulders its cost responsibilities for infrastructure damage
and other societal impacts.
The Committee denies the full amount requested because of
budgetary limitations and because several organizations,
including the GAO, TRB, AASHTO, and others, have already
conducted a variety of truck size and weight studies, primarily
focusing on infrastructure concerns. Nevertheless, with the
funds provided, FHWA must conduct thoroughly objective and
comprehensive studies on truck size and weight and cost
allocation issues examining not only on infrastructure concerns
but safety and associated crash cost impacts, congestion and
capacity effects, and energy and environmental concerns. Also,
given the wide intermodal implications of cost allocation and
truck size and weight policy, both studies must involve
representatives from the Office of the Secretary as well as
other modal administrations to ensure a balanced interagency
perspective. The Committee directs that, to the maximum extent
possible, FHWA shall ensure that the contractors participating
in these studies are free from conflicts of interest with the
trucking and rail industries.
FHWA is expected to complete these analyses with fiscal
year 1996 funds. FHWA is provided the flexibility to use funds
for policy research to complete these studies, but the amount
of fiscal year 1996 section 6005 funds allocated for policy
studies shall not be more than $1,800,000, the same as that
planned for allocation during fiscal year 1995.
GOE BUDGET JUSTIFICATION, RESEARCH PRIORITIES, AND PLANNING
The Committee has appreciated the level of detail and
thorough justification that has historically characterized the
GOE budget request of the FHWA. The Committee found that the
fiscal year 1996 budget submittal did not provide a
comprehensive and analytical framework for understanding the
intended uses of moneys derived from the Federal highway trust
fund. Simply stated, the fiscal year 1996 budget justification
did not meet the quality of presentation set by past budgets.
In addition, FHWA must be certain that its budget submittal
contains its most current R&D objectives and planned projects.
The fiscal year 1996 submittal did not meet this standard in
every research category.
The Committee has reviewed the Transportation Research
Board [TRB] report entitled ``Highway Research: Current
Programs and Future Directions.'' The Committee expects FHWA to
consider carefully the TRB recommendations dealing with the
importance of pursuing additional exploratory and high-risk
research. The Committee wants to be convinced that FHWA has
properly balanced RD&T activities aimed at attaining longer-
term objectives with shorter-term payoffs. FHWA will be asked
to estimate next year the amount of funds in each RD&T program
activity that will be devoted to longer-range research. Also,
FHWA should provide the Research and Technology Coordinating
Committee [RTCC] of TRB with the opportunity to comment on the
RD&T budget request each year before it is submitted to OMB.
For many years, FHWA prepared a 5-year strategic plan to
help guide the RD&T program. In view of the prospects for
reorganization at the Department, FHWA did not produce such a
plan for the fiscal year 1995-2000 or later periods. In light
of foreseeable budgetary constraints, such strategic planning
is even more critical because the Committee must be convinced
that the wisest choices for RD&T funding have been made by FHWA
within the context of a strategic plan. Consequently, the
Committee directs that FHWA immediately reinstitute its 5-year
strategic planning exercise and expects to receive an updated
plan each year comparable in quality to previous 5-year
strategic plans issued by FHWA. The first of these new plans
should be submitted to both the House and Senate Committees
concurrently with the fiscal year 1997 budget request. The plan
should assume several scenarios in its formulation based on
different budget projections. The Committee supports periodic
fundamental or zero-base reviews by the Research and Technology
Executive Board. The results of these analyses should be
included in forthcoming 5-year strategic plans.
The Committee seeks a more definitive accounting of all
administrative expenses associated with the RD&T program,
including costs associated with research management and
coordination, and operation of the Turner Fairbanks facility.
The Committee directs FHWA to prepare a report detailing all
such expenses (other than P, C, and B) for fiscal years 1994,
1995, 1996, and planned for fiscal year 1997. These expenses
will include all costs derived from the administrative takedown
out of the LGOE program accounts as well any other funds. This
report will be submitted to both the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations concurrent with the fiscal year
1997 budget request.
The Committee is concerned that the management and
coordination costs of the RD&T budget are excessive--about
$12,400,000 during fiscal year 1995. These expenses, some of
which are necessary, reduce the amount of funds available for
actual technological progress. Consequently, the Committee
directs that no more than $9,900,000 be derived from the
administrative takedown of the RD&T programmatic funds to
support research management and coordination. FHWA should
explore mechanisms to further reduce these costs and more
accurately display these costs, for example, registration costs
for annual meetings should be accounted for in the budget set
aside for training.
other
University parkway, Jackson, MS.--The Committee is aware of
efforts by the city of Jackson and Jackson State University to
implement plans for a university parkway to connect the
University to Jackson's central business district and provide
intermodal transportation linkage with the area's highways,
light and major rail connections, and airport access. This
project, which is located within a federally designated
enterprise community, will provide a means to revitalize the
area surrounding Jackson State University, one of the Nation's
historically black colleges and universities. The Committee
notes that the Mississippi Legislature has committed
$20,000,000 from the State, Hinds County, and the city for use
with Federal funds for the university parkway. Therefore, the
Committee directs the Department of Transportation to review
this project's eligibility under the Department's programs and
provide such assistance as may be appropriate.
South Louisiana hurricane evacuation high-priority
corridors.--The Committee is aware of the hurricane evacuation
needs in south Louisiana and expects the Federal Highway
Administration to identify routes that will expedite future
emergency evacuations of coastal areas of Louisiana that could
be considered as high-priority corridors.
Shiloh interchange.--The Committee understands that an
additional $3,000,000 may be needed for the Shiloh interchange
in Billings, MT. The Committee urges the authorizing committee
to determine if this additional funding is necessary and take
appropriate actions in authorizing these funds.
General Provisions
Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.--The Committee has retained
language in the bill continuing the one-way westbound toll
collection system on the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge. The
Committee believes one-way westbound tolls reduce traffic
congestion and pollution, and encourages the Governors of New
York and New Jersey to agree upon a mutually acceptable
solution to the problem of toll collection without increasing
pollution and congestion. The Committee has repeated the bill
language on this subject which was contained in Public Law 103-
122.
Obligation rates.--The Committee has continued language
which limits Federal-aid highways first quarter obligations and
changed the amount to 12 percent of the total.
General operating expenses.--The Committee has included
bill language which it has in previous bills that clarifies
those activities, programs, and projects that are to be
included under the ``Limitation on general operating expenses''
account.
Recycled paving material.--The Committee has included House
language delaying the administration, implementation, and
enforcement of section 1038(d) of Public Law 102-240.
Metric signage.--In 1988, Congress enacted legislation that
required all Federal agencies to incorporate metric
measurements in their grant and procurement programs; the
legislation was subsequently reinforced by a 1991 Executive
order that required all agencies to develop a conversion plan.
The FHWA plan was approved by the Secretary of Transportation
in October 1991. In June 1994, the FHWA published a notice of
agency decision in the Federal Register that summarized the
responses to an FHWA notice titled ``Options for Coordinating
the Metric Conversion of Traffic Control Signs,'' and announced
the Agency's decision to delay implementation of any national
metric sign conversion until after 1996, or until further
indication of the intention of Congress on this subject. The
Committee has included House language which does not allow
Federal funds to be used for metric signage.
Miller Highway.--The Committee has deleted House language
restricting the use of funds for this project in New York City,
NY.
Highway-Related Safety Grants
(Liquidation of Contract Authorization)
(Highway Trust Fund)
Appropriations, 1995.................................... ($10,800,000)
Budget estimate, 1996................................... (10,000,000)
House allowance......................................... (10,000,000)
Committee recommendation
(13,000,000)
Section 402 of title 23, United States Code, authorizes
programs to assist States and localities in implementing
highway safety programs in accordance with uniform standards
established by the Secretary. Most of the activities carried
out under the FHWA standards involve development and
implementation of systems, procedures, manuals, et cetera, to
assist highway agencies in the orderly planning and
implementation of safety construction and operational
improvements.
The Committee recommends $13,000,000 for liquidation of
contract authority for highway-related safety grants.
limitation on obligations
The Committee recommends $13,000,000 for a limitation on
obligations of contract authority for highway-related safety
grants, which is $3,000,000 above the President's request.
These additional funds will enhance the States' efforts to
refine and implement safety management systems, to allow States
to pass through moneys to local governments to provide highway
engineering expertise as part of the Safer Communities Program,
or to conduct highway outreach campaigns that deal with traffic
signalization, markings, work-zone safety, and other
engineering concerns.
OFFICE OF HIGHWAY SAFETY
The Committee is impressed with the revitalization of the
Office of Highway Safety. In response to a directive of the
Committee, this Office has submitted an excellent 5-year
strategic plan outlining its future course and direction. The
Office continues to improve its outreach activities, has
implemented a new training course on hazardous materials
routing, is working with local communities to help close grade
crossings pursuant to section 1010 of the ISTEA, has made
substantial progress in getting the States to remove unsafe
guard rails, and is beginning to pursue a new pedestrian safety
initiative with NHTSA. The Committee highly approves of the
increased flexibility that this Office is providing the States
in implementing the section 402 program. The Committee looks
forward to reviewing the accomplishments of this Office as part
of next year's hearing.
Within the funds provided for technology assessment and
deployment, the Committee recommends that not less than
$1,000,000 shall be allocated to the Office of Highway Safety
[OHS] to develop and pilot test at least two new outreach
campaigns that can be used by the States under the section 402
program. The Committee has reviewed the Red Light Running
Campaign and has received positive comments on this program
from various State officials. The Committee expects that the
OHS will develop other successful highway safety outreach
activities, such as a project to increase compliance with yield
right-of-way or grade crossings signs. These campaigns should
be ready for deployment by the States, if they so chose, as
part of their fiscal year 1997 section 402 programs.
The Committee strongly endorses the initial actions taken
to implement the Department's grade crossing plan. The
Department should submit a letter to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations before next year's hearing
detailing steps taken to complete implementation of this plan
and the resulting progress. The Committee supports and
encourages the work of FHWA, FRA, and affected States to
promote the elimination of grade crossings involving principal
rail lines that cross the proposed National Highway System.
Federal-Aid Highways
(Liquidation of Contract Authorization)
(Highway Trust Fund)
Appropriations, 1995
($17,000,000,000)
Budget estimate, 1996 \1\
(19,200,000,000)
House allowance
(19,200,000,000)
Committee recommendation
(19,200,000,000)
\1\ This account is proposed to be replaced by funding through the
Unified Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program [UTIIP].
This activity comprises the majority of all federally aided
programs through which the States are financially and
technically aided to continue a national highway system that
meets the transportation needs of the Nation in terms of
capacity and safety.
All programs included within the Federal-aid account are
financed from the highway trust fund. Authorizations in the
form of contract authority have been enacted in substantive
legislation. Except for interstate construction, these
authorizations are apportioned and/or allocated to the States
and generally remain available for obligation over a 4-year
period. Liquidating cash appropriations are subsequently
requested to fund outlays resulting from obligations incurred
under contract authority.
The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation
of $19,200,000,000 for the Federal-aid highways program, which
is the same as the House allowance and the administration's
request.
obligation ceiling
Funding for Federal-aid highways is proposed in the
administration's budget to cover only authorized demonstration
projects continuing in fiscal year 1996 and thereafter with
spending controlled by an obligation limitation of
$200,000,000. Under the administration's proposal, the balance
of programs formerly included in this account are replaced by
funding through the new UTIIP.
Under the House's allowance, which includes an obligation
ceiling of $18,000,000,000 it is estimated that programs exempt
from the limitation would total approximately $2,311,932,000
for a total program level of $20,311,932,000.
The Committee recommends an obligation ceiling of
$17,000,000,000 for the regular Federal-aid formula program. In
addition, the programs outside the obligation ceiling are
estimated at $2,333,591,000 for a total program level of
$19,333,591,000.
Estimated fiscal year 1996 obligation limitation distributed at
$17,000,000,000
State Current law
Alabama................................................. $255,529,041
Alaska.................................................. 205,712,234
Arizona................................................. 188,031,345
Arkansas................................................ 156,392,352
California.............................................. 1,245,583,528
Colorado................................................ 180,808,628
Connecticut............................................. 314,295,517
Delaware................................................ 66,310,424
District of Columbia.................................... 86,151,135
Florida................................................. 501,381,024
Georgia................................................. 396,532,369
Hawaii.................................................. 107,711,205
Idaho................................................... 113,241,109
Illinois................................................ 574,896,410
Indiana................................................. 295,647,613
Iowa.................................................... 195,416,095
Kansas.................................................. 183,721,178
Kentucky................................................ 216,621,399
Louisiana............................................... 235,168,149
Maine................................................... 80,370,851
Maryland................................................ 317,710,705
Massachusetts........................................... 707,804,315
Michigan................................................ 378,105,512
Minnesota............................................... 257,213,296
Mississippi............................................. 166,676,059
Missouri................................................ 316,288,041
Montana................................................. 156,140,489
Nebraska................................................ 126,060,246
Nevada.................................................. 99,837,065
New Hampshire........................................... 76,462,258
New Jersey.............................................. 479,429,326
New Mexico.............................................. 170,122,763
New York................................................ 868,995,994
North Carolina.......................................... 365,289,452
North Dakota............................................ 99,920,745
Ohio.................................................... 555,354,305
Oklahoma................................................ 200,248,028
Oregon.................................................. 191,723,048
Pennsylvania............................................ 798,383,405
Rhode Island............................................ 92,747,888
South Carolina.......................................... 170,121,901
South Dakota............................................ 113,123,344
Tennessee............................................... 304,905,828
Texas................................................... 930,208,190
Utah.................................................... 119,811,839
Vermont................................................. 71,079,171
Virginia................................................ 340,738,307
Washington.............................................. 213,980,548
West Virginia........................................... 152,475,440
Wisconsin............................................... 262,391,771
Wyoming................................................. 103,456,660
Puerto Rico............................................. 73,062,754
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal.......................................... 14,879,390,299
Administration.......................................... 573,704,000
Federal lands........................................... 448,000,000
Allocation reserve...................................... 1,098,905,701
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 17,000,000,000
DONOR/DONEE STATE COMPARISON
There has been considerable debate regarding the donor/
donee State issue as it regards the individual States'
contributions into the highway trust fund and the amount of
funding each State receives under the Federal-aid highways
program. Congress created section 157, the minimum allocation
program to correct any inequities created between contributions
versus receipts. This program, however, is not based on a
dollar-in versus dollar-out calculation. The minimum allocation
formula is a ratio between a State's percent share contributed
to the highway trust fund and the percent share the State
receives from the trust fund in a given year. Under the program
no State receives less than 85 percent of its percent share of
the total amount contributed to the trust fund by all States
versus its percent share received from the fund for the last
year for which FHWA has data.
In effect, the minimum allocation makeup funds received by
a State in fiscal year 1996 are based on fiscal year 1994
contributions and receipts. The minimum allocation program
calculation only considers the last year for which FHWA has
data, and no adjustments are made for contributions and
receipts over the life of the Federal-aid highway program. This
has resulted in some States receiving minimum allocation
funding, which started in fiscal year 1988, even though that
State has received more funding from the highway trust fund
than it has contributed to the fund since the start of the
Federal-aid highway program in 1956.
The following tables depict:
Table A.--Funds contributed to and received from the
highway trust fund since its inception.
Table B.--Estimated fiscal year 1996 MA Program.
Table C.--Federal funds reduced pursuant to section 1003(C)
of ISTEA.
TABLE A.--COMPARISON OF FEDERAL HIGHWAY TRUST FUND RECEIPTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE STATES AND FEDERAL-AID
APPORTIONMENTS AND ALLOCATIONS FROM THE FUND--FISCAL YEARS 1957-94 \1\
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payments into the fund \2\ Apportionments and allocations Ratio of apportionments
-------------------------------- from the fund \3\ andallocations to payments
---------------------------------------------------------------
State Fiscal Cumulated Cumulated Cumulated
year1994 since July 1, Fiscal since July 1, Fiscal since July 1,
1956 year1994 1956 year1994 1956
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama......... $311,650 $5,356,849 $353,096 $6,338,522 1.13 1.18
Alaska.......... 46,919 555,115 231,125 3,918,609 4.93 7.06
Arizona......... 258,719 3,795,797 277,014 4,870,635 1.07 1.28
Arkansas........ 203,636 3,583,949 272,735 3,593,994 1.34 1.00
California...... 1,514,363 28,686,779 2,474,027 27,730,289 1.63 .97
Colorado........ 189,618 3,564,791 285,478 4,967,000 1.51 1.39
Connecticut..... 154,221 3,307,502 351,269 5,886,091 2.28 1.78
Delaware........ 41,508 824,835 78,950 1,262,099 1.90 1.53
District of
Columbia....... 19,444 513,906 96,149 2,180,348 4.94 4.24
Florida......... 736,201 12,082,558 774,045 11,075,987 1.05 .92
Georgia......... 555,947 8,661,843 581,072 8,458,810 1.05 .98
Hawaii.......... 37,200 710,159 289,736 2,920,270 7.79 4.11
Idaho........... 81,211 1,319,095 138,570 2,403,315 1.71 1.82
Illinois........ 571,867 11,806,168 769,367 13,347,691 1.35 1.13
Indiana......... 406,411 7,518,396 406,512 6,656,468 1.00 .89
Iowa............ 174,034 3,852,564 244,292 4,526,272 1.40 1.17
Kansas.......... 169,880 3,544,745 203,033 4,012,817 1.20 1.13
Kentucky........ 294,879 4,691,721 274,465 5,289,012 .93 1.13
Louisiana....... 250,979 5,092,115 287,679 6,759,264 1.15 1.33
Maine........... 76,650 1,514,342 125,368 1,726,438 1.64 1.14
Maryland........ 252,997 4,864,984 364,846 7,543,367 1.44 1.55
Massachusetts... 259,858 5,661,816 1,063,763 9,538,523 4.09 1.68
Michigan........ 519,444 10,363,710 584,226 9,457,588 1.12 .91
Minnesota....... 239,915 5,008,080 276,782 6,501,448 1.15 1.30
Mississippi..... 189,541 3,489,553 216,461 3,626,064 1.14 1.04
Missouri........ 378,536 7,184,783 393,724 7,062,549 1.04 .98
Montana......... 68,715 1,342,504 175,992 3,349,148 2.56 2.49
Nebraska........ 112,666 2,262,884 159,987 2,712,071 1.42 1.20
Nevada.......... 96,073 1,343,785 134,447 2,257,938 1.40 1.68
New Hampshire... 55,986 1,069,824 93,232 1,565,880 1.67 1.46
New Jersey...... 352,062 8,164,660 528,651 8,453,836 1.50 1.04
New Mexico...... 125,161 2,168,912 199,507 3,099,838 1.59 1.43
New York........ 658,624 14,068,070 1,029,612 17,127,375 1.56 1.22
North Carolina.. 436,940 7,998,568 501,052 6,963,145 1.15 .87
North Dakota.... 51,624 1,021,649 122,145 2,006,162 2.37 1.96
Ohio............ 581,829 12,575,649 690,176 11,725,259 1.19 .93
Oklahoma........ 239,820 4,786,427 276,662 4,200,994 1.15 .88
Oregon.......... 189,879 3,642,633 248,129 4,476,268 1.31 1.23
Pennsylvania.... 635,093 12,790,749 1,042,792 14,823,459 1.64 1.16
Rhode Island.... 40,051 908,368 122,737 2,059,549 3.06 2.27
South Carolina.. 251,662 4,230,696 337,016 3,961,288 1.34 .94
South Dakota.... 53,260 1,090,391 131,295 2,165,410 2.47 1.99
Tennessee....... 355,599 6,385,830 384,958 6,629,020 1.08 1.04
Texas........... 1,112,402 21,279,776 1,227,228 18,568,887 1.10 .87
Utah............ 109,301 1,904,994 157,066 3,396,851 1.44 1.78
Vermont......... 41,004 672,440 80,102 1,551,831 1.95 2.31
Virginia........ 402,678 6,977,994 534,322 8,475,890 1.33 1.21
Washington...... 270,454 5,032,061 656,074 8,444,435 2.43 1.68
West Virginia... 117,085 2,269,163 222,147 4,763,969 1.90 2.10
Wisconsin....... 295,085 5,568,256 365,406 4,987,995 1.24 .90
Wyoming......... 71,318 1,132,791 137,245 2,306,434 1.92 2.04
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..... 14,659,999 278,245,229 20,971,737 321,726,400 1.43 1.16
American Samoa.. .............. .............. 8,061 40,758 .............. ..............
Guam............ .............. .............. 18,532 105,950 .............. ..............
Northern
Marianas....... .............. .............. 3,998 24,944 .............. ..............
Puerto Rico..... .............. .............. 85,075 1,237,812 .............. ..............
Virgin Islands.. .............. .............. 17,486 105,318 .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand
total.... 14,659,999 278,245,229 21,104,889 323,241,184 1.44 1.16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Payments into the fund include only the net tax receipts deposited in the highway account of the Federal
highway trust fund. Excluded are motor fuel taxes transferred to the ``Mass transit'' account of the highway
trust fund (1 cent per gallon from April 1, 1983 through November 30, 1990, 1.5 cents per gallon thereafter);
the 0.1 cent per gallon tax dedicated to the leaking underground storage tank trust fund beginning January 1,
1987; and the tax designated for deficit reduction (2.5 cents per gallon from December 1, 1990 through
September 30, 1993, 6.8 cents thereafter); and the tax from motorboat use of gasoline transferred to the
aquatic resources trust fund and the land and water conservation fund. Apportionments include fiscal year 1995
interstate construction funds apportioned during fiscal year 1994.
\2\ Total Federal highway trust fund receipts are reported by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Payments into
the highway trust fund attributable to highway users in each State are estimated by the Federal Highway
Administration. Includes revenues from highway-user taxes only. Payments into the fund are understated by
$1,590,000,000 due to an error by the Treasury Department in reconciling estimated deposits to the actual tax
revenue. The $1,590,000,000 was credited to the fund in fiscal year 1995. Had the funds been credited timely,
the national ratio of apportionments and allocations to payments would have been 1.30.
\3\ Includes all funds apportioned or allocated from the highway trust fund except for the following programs:
Indian reservation roads, highway safety information, and local transportation assistance. These programs are
either administered by other Federal agencies or are treated as administrative funds and cannot be easily
attributed to individual States. Obligations are used to represent allocations for the following programs:
Federal lands, rural highway public transportation demonstration, parkways and park roads, and alcohol safety
incentive grants.
TABLE B.--ESTIMATED FISCAL YEAR 1996 MINIMUM ALLOCATION PROGRAM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated fiscal year 1996--
------------------------------------------------------
Unobligated Available Minimum
State balance as of Minimum minimum allocation Total
June 30, 1995 allocation allocation reduction
before reduction section 1003(c)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama....................................................... $17,899,158 $30,659,980 $48,559,138 $5,922,174 $42,636,965
Alaska........................................................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Arizona....................................................... 61,345,150 56,381,095 117,726,245 10,890,374 106,835,871
Arkansas...................................................... 39,819,410 42,639,342 82,458,752 8,236,065 74,222,687
California.................................................... 392,305,532 321,283,318 713,588,850 62,057,954 651,530,896
Colorado...................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Connecticut................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Delaware...................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
District of Columbia.......................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Florida....................................................... 49,503,957 205,227,242 254,731,199 39,640,971 215,090,228
Georgia....................................................... 190,080,830 96,065,341 286,146,171 18,555,643 267,590,529
Hawaii........................................................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Idaho......................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Illinois...................................................... 6,852 ................ 6,852 ................ 6,852
Indiana....................................................... 25,016,867 75,625,592 100,642,459 14,607,573 86,034,887
Iowa.......................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Kansas........................................................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Kentucky...................................................... 65,648,363 46,545,760 112,194,123 8,990,615 103,203,508
Louisiana..................................................... 2,749,481 2,874,052 5,623,533 555,142 5,068,391
Maine......................................................... 87,462 ................ 87,462 ................ 87,462
Maryland...................................................... 11,172,841 ................ 11,172,841 ................ 11,172,841
Massachusetts................................................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Michigan...................................................... 23,972,451 80,892,559 104,865,010 15,624,922 89,240,088
Minnesota..................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Mississippi................................................... 6,444,159 22,288,208 28,732,367 4,305,112 24,427,255
Missouri...................................................... 43,076,567 51,055,638 94,132,205 9,861,727 84,270,478
Montana....................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Nebraska...................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Nevada........................................................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
New Hampshire................................................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
New Jersey.................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
New Mexico.................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
New York...................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
North Carolina................................................ 51,649,782 72,205,409 123,855,191 13,946,942 109,908,249
North Dakota.................................................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Ohio.......................................................... 120,211,860 48,662,045 168,873,905 9,399,389 159,474,516
Oklahoma...................................................... 28,183,057 31,909,613 60,092,670 6,163,548 53,929,121
Oregon........................................................ 12,668,869 ................ 12,668,869 ................ 12,668,869
Pennsylvania.................................................. 5,257,269 ................ 5,257,269 ................ 5,257,269
Rhode Island.................................................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
South Carolina................................................ 20,467,942 ................ 20,467,942 ................ 20,467,942
South Dakota.................................................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Tennessee..................................................... 48,654,373 36,875,219 85,529,592 7,122,687 78,406,905
Texas......................................................... 153,895,442 144,526,798 298,422,240 27,916,287 270,505,953
Utah.......................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Vermont....................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Virginia...................................................... 73,675,198 ................ 73,675,198 ................ 73,675,198
Washington.................................................... 9,589,941 ................ 9,589,941 ................ 9,589,941
West Virginia................................................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Wisconsin..................................................... 13,332,797 61,105,252 74,438,049 11,802,875 62,635,174
Wyoming....................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Puerto Rico................................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................... 1,466,715,609 1,426,822,463 2,893,538,072 275,600,000 2,617,938,072
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: With exception to column 1, these amounts are estimates. The amounts will change when the apportionment and allocation are made.
TABLE C.--ESTIMATED REDUCED AMOUNTS PER SECTION 1003(C) OF PUBLIC LAW 102-240
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Congestion
States Interstatereimbursement Interstatemaintenance National Highway Bridge Transportation mitigation air/
System Program quality
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama......................... $1,925,000 $10,685,974 $13,450,665 $8,450,507 $16,824,154 $994,933
Alaska.......................... 1,925,000 4,319,187 10,902,745 1,773,523 23,137,409 980,009
Arizona......................... 1,925,000 12,033,931 9,246,632 1,323,485 11,488,734 2,668,600
Arkansas........................ 1,925,000 6,192,687 8,056,388 5,822,105 9,590,170 994,933
California...................... 20,864,588 53,827,440 58,034,017 34,661,074 68,307,543 29,898,106
Colorado........................ 1,925,000 10,293,430 10,833,741 5,139,199 13,735,635 980,009
Connecticut..................... 21,980,959 7,113,123 11,730,802 10,553,419 20,541,373 4,676,092
Delaware........................ 2,733,184 2,820,300 3,519,241 1,336,854 5,319,299 980,009
District of Columbia............ 1,925,000 2,820,300 3,712,944 2,964,660 4,177,639 994,933
Florida......................... 2,155,751 21,233,239 27,601,886 9,618,880 42,879,715 6,032,742
Georgia......................... 3,233,626 20,162,008 20,246,054 8,949,274 25,040,262 3,124,309
Hawaii.......................... 1,925,000 2,820,300 3,588,245 4,051,148 13,035,595 980,009
Idaho........................... 1,925,000 5,198,259 5,382,368 1,412,106 7,854,484 980,009
Illinois........................ 33,183,164 19,443,753 26,773,830 19,242,032 33,698,272 9,737,830
Indiana......................... 11,664,152 12,595,137 15,043,028 7,176,980 20,787,848 2,239,459
Iowa............................ 1,925,000 7,820,039 10,833,741 8,130,276 13,270,892 980,009
Kansas.......................... 7,083,181 8,011,250 9,867,674 8,190,786 10,438,446 980,009
Kentucky........................ 2,194,246 9,760,068 11,385,778 6,887,899 14,101,382 1,461,399
Louisiana....................... 1,925,000 10,091,011 11,629,221 12,369,453 8,668,273 994,933
Maine........................... 2,656,193 2,820,300 4,347,297 3,587,175 5,323,625 980,009
Maryland........................ 10,740,258 9,300,365 10,998,721 7,762,522 12,422,411 6,263,337
Massachusetts................... 19,786,713 9,529,792 13,110,896 23,252,006 3,126,279 8,184,610
Michigan........................ 15,937,158 18,320,933 19,615,554 14,330,275 19,787,367 5,869,854
Minnesota....................... 1,925,000 10,776,149 12,006,821 5,318,188 16,218,789 980,009
Mississippi..................... 1,925,000 6,730,216 8,756,944 7,695,379 9,007,357 994,933
Missouri........................ 5,196,899 15,111,180 17,093,554 17,759,248 13,055,178 2,001,756
Montana......................... 1,925,000 8,776,916 7,590,519 2,354,057 9,287,173 980,009
Nebraska........................ 1,925,000 4,556,003 7,495,944 5,431,372 10,070,605 994,933
Nevada.......................... 1,925,000 4,965,939 5,394,277 1,323,485 8,108,747 994,933
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE C.--ESTIMATED REDUCED AMOUNTS PER SECTION 1003(C) OF PUBLIC LAW 102-240--Continued
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Donor State Apportionment Minimum Demonstration
States bonus adjustment Subtotal allocation projects Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama..................................... $5,026,558 $357,935 $57,715,727 $5,922,174 $5,884,804 $69,522,704
Alaska...................................... ................ 5,632,043 48,669,917 ................ ................ 48,669,917
Arizona..................................... 1,610,645 3,951,310 44,248,337 10,890,374 454,000 55,592,711
Arkansas.................................... 1,967,513 2,964,017 37,512,813 8,236,065 12,672,724 58,421,602
California.................................. 10,194,090 ................ 275,786,858 62,057,954 13,501,686 351,346,498
Colorado.................................... ................ ................ 42,907,014 ................ 107,918 43,014,932
Connecticut................................. ................ ................ 76,595,767 ................ 2,954,719 79,550,487
Delaware.................................... ................ 1,015,451 17,724,338 ................ ................ 17,724,338
District of Columbia........................ ................ 825,017 17,420,495 ................ 822,409 18,242,904
Florida..................................... 5,142,394 408,190 115,072,796 39,640,971 6,681,982 161,395,750
Georgia..................................... 4,146,099 3,672,069 88,573,701 18,555,643 4,130,206 111,259,550
Hawaii...................................... ................ ................ 26,400,298 ................ 223,279 26,623,577
Idaho....................................... ................ 4,768,594 27,520,820 ................ 2,619,801 30,140,622
Illinois.................................... ................ 20,666,136 162,745,018 ................ 9,334,159 172,079,177
Indiana..................................... 9,292,189 ................ 78,798,793 14,607,573 3,531,522 96,937,888
Iowa........................................ ................ 3,494,447 46,454,403 ................ 4,232,133 50,686,536
Kansas...................................... ................ 4,325,617 48,896,963 ................ 2,716,556 51,613,519
Kentucky.................................... 5,746,363 ................ 51,537,135 8,990,615 803,803 61,331,553
Louisiana................................... 2,402,865 7,187,037 55,267,792 555,142 2,603,614 58,426,548
Maine....................................... ................ 1,187,241 20,901,841 ................ 6,962,569 27,864,410
Maryland.................................... ................ ................ 57,487,614 ................ 3,576,178 61,063,792
Massachusetts............................... ................ 4,720,583 81,710,879 ................ 219,557 81,930,436
Michigan.................................... 7,613,106 ................ 101,474,247 15,624,922 4,616,656 121,715,824
Minnesota................................... ................ 12,766,617 59,991,574 ................ 7,767,860 67,759,434
Mississippi................................. 1,515,048 3,267,038 39,891,915 4,305,112 1,228,962 45,425,989
Missouri.................................... 5,265,110 1,720,647 77,203,571 9,861,727 5,361,401 92,426,699
Montana..................................... ................ 6,363,578 37,277,252 ................ 669,836 37,947,088
Nebraska.................................... ................ 205,345 30,679,202 ................ 931,071 31,610,274
Nevada...................................... ................ 1,823,046 24,535,427 ................ 3,365,147 27,900,574
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE C.--ESTIMATED REDUCED AMOUNTS PER SECTION 1003(C) OF PUBLIC LAW 102-240--Continued
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Congestion
States Interstatereimbursement Interstatemaintenance National Highway Bridge Transportation mitigation air/
System Program quality
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Hampshire................... 1,925,000 2,820,300 4,209,288 2,708,199 5,839,170 980,009
New Jersey...................... 24,675,647 6,130,994 18,284,498 27,577,423 15,656,798 11,638,640
New Mexico...................... 1,925,000 9,062,561 7,383,505 1,659,068 9,128,518 980,009
New York........................ 64,980,488 20,446,145 38,250,330 52,939,412 29,210,303 21,236,474
North Carolina.................. 2,502,211 11,822,875 17,724,054 14,122,965 21,483,921 994,933
North Dakota.................... 1,925,000 4,307,369 5,175,354 1,323,485 8,271,863 980,009
Ohio............................ 18,015,917 21,393,241 24,979,707 21,044,860 25,222,268 8,123,719
Oklahoma........................ 6,390,261 7,664,031 10,557,721 8,301,429 12,520,519 980,009
Oregon.......................... 5,466,368 8,536,553 8,616,833 7,692,467 6,814,917 1,183,391
Pennsylvania.................... 24,752,638 14,889,909 28,792,831 53,474,153 9,518,467 12,196,973
Rhode Island.................... 1,925,000 2,820,300 3,588,245 3,433,439 4,371,953 1,163,707
South Carolina.................. 1,925,000 9,635,020 10,212,698 6,012,700 11,875,622 980,009
South Dakota.................... 1,925,000 5,195,746 5,727,391 1,984,487 8,220,831 980,009
Tennessee....................... 1,925,000 13,889,750 15,412,221 11,194,761 16,231,619 1,761,349
Texas........................... 14,012,380 42,415,104 47,777,884 21,938,198 63,275,578 20,051,387
Utah............................ 1,925,000 9,413,604 6,555,448 2,271,736 5,967,373 980,009
Vermont......................... 1,925,000 2,820,300 3,795,259 2,901,615 4,544,990 980,009
Virginia........................ 7,737,605 15,708,156 15,342,165 10,105,866 15,280,005 4,295,925
Washington...................... 5,081,413 12,194,969 12,329,777 12,579,675 8,212,777 3,209,678
West Virginia................... 1,925,000 4,535,081 8,616,833 11,099,042 7,581,438 994,933
Wisconsin....................... 1,925,000 7,642,686 11,592,792 6,294,549 17,269,182 2,493,658
Wyoming......................... 1,925,000 6,932,803 5,727,391 1,323,485 7,141,654 980,009
Puerto Rico..................... ....................... 2,538,270 4,098,250 3,027,118 5,728,078 994,933
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... 385,000,000 560,945,000 693,000,000 531,877,500 788,672,500 198,082,500
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE C.--ESTIMATED REDUCED AMOUNTS PER SECTION 1003(C) OF PUBLIC LAW 102-240--Continued
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Donor State Apportionment Minimum Demonstration
States bonus adjustment Subtotal allocation projects Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Hampshire............................... ................ 790,078 19,272,044 ................ 1,194,540 20,466,584
New Jersey.................................. ................ 10,598,270 114,562,271 ................ 7,550,536 122,112,806
New Mexico.................................. ................ 10,202,468 40,341,129 ................ 401,901 40,743,030
New York.................................... ................ 17,429,241 244,492,393 ................ 13,278,747 257,771,140
North Carolina.............................. 3,236,125 9,880,713 81,767,797 13,946,942 5,440,554 101,155,293
North Dakota................................ ................ 2,564,152 24,547,233 ................ 2,642,129 27,189,362
Ohio........................................ 16,036,592 4,834,103 139,650,407 9,399,389 5,885,622 154,935,419
Oklahoma.................................... 1,775,029 3,749,826 51,938,826 6,163,548 3,294,847 61,397,221
Oregon...................................... ................ 5,520,917 43,831,446 ................ 1,711,802 45,543,248
Pennsylvania................................ ................ ................ 143,624,970 ................ 32,811,153 176,436,123
Rhode Island................................ ................ ................ 17,302,644 ................ 2,136,403 19,439,048
South Carolina.............................. ................ ................ 40,641,049 ................ 1,440,147 42,081,196
South Dakota................................ ................ 3,510,683 27,544,148 ................ 696,629 28,240,777
Tennessee................................... 4,477,812 3,960,530 68,853,041 7,122,687 1,536,677 77,512,406
Texas....................................... 9,816,983 ................ 219,287,515 27,916,287 9,029,950 256,233,751
Utah........................................ ................ 1,904,044 29,017,215 ................ 405,623 29,422,838
Vermont..................................... ................ 1,067,786 18,034,959 ................ 744,262 18,779,221
Virginia.................................... ................ ................ 68,469,723 ................ 5,191,226 73,660,949
Washington.................................. ................ ................ 53,608,288 ................ 3,334,293 56,942,581
West Virginia............................... ................ 2,021,404 36,773,730 ................ 11,603,041 48,376,771
Wisconsin................................... 3,680,479 10,332,768 61,231,114 11,802,875 2,660,736 75,694,725
Wyoming..................................... ................ 1,343,445 25,373,788 ................ 744,262 26,118,050
Puerto Rico................................. ................ ................ 16,386,650 ................ ................ 16,386,650
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. 98,945,000 181,032,386 3,437,554,886 275,600,000 221,709,632 3,934,864,518
Administration.............................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 133,455,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. ................ ................ ................ ................ 221,709,632 4,068,319,518
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
section 1003(c) reductions in authorizations for budget compliance
The Committee has included two general provisions to
alleviate the reduction in budget authority carried out by
section 1003(c) of Public Law 102-240. That provision has
effectively reduced the amount of new contract authority that
each State would receive in fiscal year 1996 by approximately
20 percent. The Committee feels that States should be allowed
flexibility on how to administer the cut and has included bill
language which: (a) permits a State to exchange accrued
unobligated contract authority balances from prior years for
additional fiscal year 1996 contract authority; and (b) permits
a State, for fiscal year 1996, to exchange demonstration
project unobligated contract authorizations or unobligated
appropriations on a dollar-for-dollar basis, provided such
demonstration project is not under construction, and thereby
allow a State to make greater use of such funding for higher
priority projects.
Indian reservation road exemption.--Section 346 of the bill
exempts the Indian reservation roads program from reduction in
authorizations otherwise required by section 1003(c) of Public
Law 102-240.
Interstate Substitute Highways
This program, part of the Federal-aid highways activity,
provides funding of highways substituted for Interstate System
segments withdrawn from the system under 23 U.S.C. 103(e)(4).
After the joint request by a State Governor and the local
governments concerned, the Secretary withdrew (from the
Interstate System) interstate highway segments which would have
passed through or connect urbanized areas within the State
determined not to be essential to a unified Interstate System.
The value of a withdrawn segment, adjusted for inflation,
establishes an authorization against which Congress may provide
funds.
Under existing law, all of the contract authority provided
for highway projects substituted for withdrawn interstate
highway segments has been distributed. As shown in the
following table, there remains $33,300,000 needed to fully fund
the substitute highway projects. However, no additional
contract authority has been provided under existing law to
distribute to these withdrawal areas.
ESTIMATED FEDERAL FUNDS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE SUBSTITUTE HIGHWAY PROJECTS
AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1995
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
additional
funds required
State Withdrawal area to complete
substitute
highway
projects \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona.................... Tucson..................... $11,889
California................. San Francisco.............. 1,204,533
Connecticut................ Bolton to Killingly........ 10,042,918
Hartford-New Britain....... 321,448
Washington, DC............. Washington................. 78,607
Georgia.................... Atlanta.................... 638,986
Maryland................... Baltimore.................. 1,562,592
Bowie-Millersvllle......... 415,757
Washington................. 47,050
Massachusetts.............. Boston..................... 1,779
Fall River to Providence... 77,459
New Jersey................. New York City.............. 234,755
New York City-Trenton...... 1,388,601
New York................... New York City.............. 11,875,419
Rhode Island............... Rhode Island............... 4,003,336
Tennessee.................. Memphis.................... 1,409,446
---------------
Totals............... ........................... 33,314,577
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Amounts are in Federal funds and assume full obligation of the
fiscal year 1995 apportionments and prior-year discretionary
allocations and formula apportionments.
bridge discretionary funds
In the past, the Committee has directed the Secretary of
Transportation to give priority designation, consistent with
existing criteria, to several bridges that have extremely low
rating factors and which serve as major links for both
intrastate and interstate commerce and which directly impact
the economic development of an area. The ISTEA legislation
distributes all but $60,500,000 of the total $2,763,000,000
available by statutory formula.
The Committee directs funding for the following bridge
projects consistent with existing criteria:
State Routes 1 and 9 (2AG), New Jersey
Sidney Lanier Bridge, Brunswick, GA
discretionary interstate maintenance
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1991, Public Law 102-240, authorized the interstate
resurfacing, restoring, or rehabilitation of routes at a total
program level of $2,914,000,000 for fiscal year 1996. The ISTEA
legislation distributes mostly all of these funds by statutory
formula. However, $64,000,000 of National Highway System funds
are set aside for 4-R work.
The Committee directs funding for the following
discretionary interstate maintenance consistent with existing
criteria: I-15 Spring Mountain Interchange in Clark County, NV
and I-79, between Clendenin and Amma, in Kanawha and Roane
Counties, WV.
federal lands highway programs
Consistent with section 1032 of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 that provides funds for
projects for tourism and recreational travel, the Committee
directs that priority consideration be given the following
projects: Olympic National Park, WA, and SR 160, Pahrump Road,
Pahrump, NV.
The Committee directs that before distribution of funds,
$6,000,000 be made available for interstate access, known as
the Chenoweth Interchange, to facilities identified in section
16(b)(1) of Public Law 99-663.
interstate discretionary
Under the ISTEA highway authorization, the final set-aside
of funds for the Interstate Discretionary Program occurred in
fiscal year 1995. As of March 1995, $58,000,000 of these funds
were available for distribution which is expected to occur in
fiscal year 1995.
ferry boat and facilities
Under Public Law 102-240, $17,000,000 is available in
fiscal year 1996 for ferry boat and facilities construction.
The Committee directs that out of the available funds, priority
consideration be given to the following projects: passenger
ferry deck rehabilitation on the MV Chelan in Washington State;
docking slip refurbishment in Port Vashon, WA, and prince of
Wales Island, AK, marine ferry.
timber bridge
Section 1039(e) of Public Law 102-240 provides
discretionary highway timber research and demonstration program
funding. Consistent with the criteria established in section
1039, $1,000,000 is available for research grants and
information transfer and $7,500,000 is available for
construction grants.
HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS
Section 1105(h) of Public Law 102-240 provides
discretionary funds to study high priority corridors for
possible inclusion in the National Highway System. Consistent
with the criteria established in section 1105, the Committee
directs that such projects be given priority consideration to
receive these study and planning funds.
scenic byways
Consistent with the criteria established in section 1047 of
Public Law 102-240 for the Scenic Byways Program, the FHWA may
use previously provided contract authority.
emergency relief
The Federal Highway Administration's emergency relief
program allows the Secretary of Transportation to provide
assistance to States when highways and bridges are damaged
during natural disasters or other emergencies. The Federal
Highway Administration has found the Hannibal Bridge eligible
for emergency relief funding as a result of the damage
sustained during the Midwest floods of 1993. The Committee
finds that the narrow two-lane bridge, built in 1934, fails to
ensure motorist safety or serve modern transportation needs
with ratings of the bridge indicating both safety and
structural deficiencies. With these conditions, the Committee
believes it would be a more prudent use of emergency relief
funds to apply $28,000,000 to the construction of a replacement
bridge.
INTELLIGENT VEHICLE/HIGHWAY SYSTEMS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
House allowance recommendation \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paralympiad........................ ............... 1,000
Northeast corridor (I-95).......... 7,000 ( \2\ )
Houston corridor, TX............... 2,400 2,000
I-10 Mobile, AL.................... 4,000
VA/MD capitol beltway.............. 6,000 4,000
Santa Teresa border crossing, NM... ............... 900
University of North Dakota......... ............... 1,000
University of Texas, El Paso....... 1,000 ..................
Texas Transportation Institute..... 600 ..................
Western Transportation Institute,
Montana........................... ............... 1,000
Johnson City, TN................... 3,000 ..................
TRANSCOM, New York/New Jersey...... ............... 1,500
Syracuse, NY, congestion management 3,000 ..................
New York State Thruway............. ............... 3,000
National Transportation Center,
Oakdale, NY....................... ............... 1,000
Advanced railroad/highway crossings ............... 2,500
Hazardous materials safety......... 5,000 ..................
Oregon green light CVO project..... 6,000 8,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Committee is recommending funding up to the levels listed and
not absolute amounts. It believes FHWA should have maximum ability to
maximize State, local, and private funding for these projects.
\2\ Funding for this project is included in the congested corridor
program.
The Committee maintains that FHWA should enter into
additional operational tests that advance technology and
simultaneously demonstrate new institutional arrangements. The
Committee expects that FHWA will vigorously seek out such
qualified projects as part of future solicitations for
proposals regarding IVHS operational tests.
In the report accompanying the 1992 act, the Committee
stated that it was going to base funding decisions on the
guidance and direction provided by the IVHS strategic plan. By
following this strategy, the Committee sought to ensure the
most cost-effective use of public dollars, allow for a
systematic analysis of proposed operational tests and ensure
rational and orderly advancement of IVHS. Consistent with this
approach and the provisions of the IVHS Act of 1991, the
Committee's allowance seeks to maximize the flexibility
provided to FHWA in awarding contracts and in entering into
cooperative agreements for corridor and IVHS operational tests.
This strategy will allow FHWA to seek the maximum non-Federal
contributions for joint Federal/State government/industry
projects and to fund innovative projects that will advance the
state of IVHS technology. The Committee strongly believes that
FHWA needs this flexibility in order to continue its effective
management of the National IVHS Program in concert with the
IVHS strategic plan.
The Committee notes recent advancements in information
technology and its applicability to complex transportation
systems, such as the system which will run in Atlanta next
summer during the conduct of the Paralympic Games. The
Committee has included $1,000,000 for development and
demonstration of an individualized routing system to maximize
the ability of people with disabilities to move about
independently during the Paralympiad.
The Committee notes the safety and efficiency results that
are being achieved by the Oakland County, MI, FAST-TRAC
operational test. The Committee recommends that the joint
program office continue funding this test subject to the
availability of funds. Funding of $1,000,000 has been provided
to both the Western Transportation Institute, Montana, and the
National Transportation Center, New York. The Committee
understands that with this funding the Federal commitment to
each is completed.
In order to maximize the Federal investment the Committee
intends that any funding provided be used only in support of or
research on intelligent transportation systems and not for
construction of buildings.
Right-of-Way Revolving Fund
(Limitation on Direct Loans)
(Highway Trust Fund)
Appropriations, 1995.................................... ($42,500,000)
Budget estimate, 1996...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................
The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968 authorized $300,000,000
for the establishment of the Right-of-Way Revolving Fund. This
fund is utilized to make cash advances to the States for the
purpose of purchasing right-of-way parcels in advance of
highway construction and thereby preventing the inflation of
land prices from causing a significant increase in construction
costs. When right-of-way acquisition has been made and highway
construction is initiated, the State becomes eligible for
Federal grants under the various Federal-aid highway
authorizations. At the point when progress payments are made to
the State for construction, the State in turn reimburses the
revolving fund for advances made to that State for right-of-way
acquisition. Utilizing this method of funding, all
reimbursements made to the revolving fund may be reallocated to
other States requiring advances.
In the administrations budget request, this program was
proposed for termination in 1996. It will continue to be shown
for reporting purposes as loan balances remain outstanding. A
prohibition on further obligations was requested for 1996.
The continued obligation for returned amounts to this fund
will occur. The Carson City bypass project in Carson City, NV,
will be given priority for any funds made available under this
program.
Motor Carrier Safety Grants
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(Highway Trust Fund)
Appropriations, 1995.................................... ($73,000,000)
Budget estimate, 1996................................... (68,000,000)
House allowance......................................... (68,000,000)
Committee recommendation
(68,000,000)
This program was first authorized by the Surface
Transportation Assistance Act of 1982. It provides grants to
States for improved enforcement of Federal and State motor
carrier safety rules. It has been shown that added enforcement
of truck safety rules reduces truck-related accidents and
fatalities. The major objective of this program is to reduce
the number and severity of accidents involving commercial motor
vehicles.
The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation
of $68,000,000 level which is the same as the House allowance
and the budget request.
limitation on obligations
The administration proposes to fund the program at the
ISTEA-authorized level of $85,000,000. The Committee is
recommending an obligation ceiling of $75,000,000 for motor
carrier safety grants. This is $10,000,000 below the level
requested by the administration and $4,150,000 below the House
allowance and expects the funds to be distributed as follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
1995 1996 budget Houseallowance Committee
appropriation estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic grants to States.......................... 55,550 62,812 60,000 55,550
Administrative expenses......................... 825 1,063 875 825
Traffic enforcement............................. 6,375 7,000 6,875 6,925
CDL enforcement................................. 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Hazardous materials training.................... 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500
Truck and bus accidents......................... 1,500 2,000 1,750 1,750
Uniformity grants............................... 3,450 5,000 3,800 3,450
Uniformity working groups....................... 450 1,000 450 450
Commercial vehicle information system........... 1,500 2,000 1,500 1,700
Drug interdiction assistance.................... 500 .............. .............. 500
Research and development........................ 500 775 500 500
Public education................................ 850 850 850 850
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... 74,000 85,000 79,150 75,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee recognizes the many positive accomplishments
of the 5,140 State officers and 120 FHWA personnel who
contribute at least part time to the MCSAP. The Committee
applauds the actions taken by FHWA and the States, with support
from MCSAP, to improve compatibility of the safety regulations
throughout the Nation.
The additional funds provided will be used to increase
traffic enforcement which has been shown to be effective in
dealing with major causal factors in crashes involving
commercial vehicles. Before October 1, 1996, FHWA is directed
to submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
a report on the effectiveness, benefits, and costs of traffic
enforcement as a means of reducing the frequency and severity
of crashes involving commercial motor vehicles and as a means
of improving regulatory compliance, including compliance with
State and local traffic codes. The report should analyze the
impact of traffic enforcement on crash reduction, assess the
acceptance of this enforcement strategy as part of the MCSAP in
the law enforcement community, and evaluate whether traffic
enforcement targeted at high-risk locations is a useful
strategy in improving highway safety. Furthermore, the report
should evaluate the impact that dedicating funds for traffic
enforcement activities have on the number of law enforcement
officers concerned with and trained to deal with commercial
motor vehicle carrier safety. To obtain quantitative as well as
qualitative data, OMC will use a variety of research
strategies, including a review and compilation of data
contained in State enforcement plans, the conduct of a
diversity of special enforcement projects in different
geographic locations, and statistical analyses of past
inspection data on the number of out-of-service violations
issued as a result of traffic enforcement operations as
compared to other enforcement strategies.
The Committee supports FHWA encouraging those States
without pen-based systems to use a small portion of their basic
grants to purchase pen-based information systems for use at the
roadside. These systems have been accepted by the MCSAP
community, are relatively inexpensive, and save data entry
expenses. More importantly, these systems will ensure that
SAFETYNET data is current and timely. The Committee also
supports FHWA's efforts to work with the States to incorporate
modern brake testing technology into their inspection
protocols.
The Committee denies the full amount of funding requested
for MCSAP for several reasons: (1) rapid expansion of the
program--in fiscal year 1995 MCSAP received an increase in
funding of $9,000,000 over fiscal year 1994, thus continuing
the substantial growth enjoyed by this program during the last
5 years; (2) concern that some States have not conducted
adequate verification programs, including a sufficient number
of covert operations; and (3) budgetary limitations.
Within the funds provided for Truck and Bus Accident Data
Grant Program, $200,000 shall be used to conduct a model
accident investigation and reconstruction program, including
the training of MCSAP officers on investigation techniques.
The Committee's allowance includes $500,000 for the Drug
Interdiction Assistance Program. As a result of this program
over 350 drug seizures from commercial motor vehicles have been
documented, totaling over 259,000 pounds of marijuana, over
78,000 pounds of cocaine, and $9,300,000 in currency seizures.
DIAP has facilitated training over 17,000 law enforcement
officers.
The Committee's allowance includes $850,000 for activities
to educate the public on sharing the road with commercial motor
vehicles. These funds will allow the development of new
national campaign materials, but will primarily be used to
provide grants for State activities.
Out-of-service orders.--Since 1988 the Committee has sought
to ensure that the MCSAP community pays more attention to the
problem of drivers failing to comply with out-of-service
orders. The Committee applauds the actions of many MCSAP
States, the FHWA, and the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
[CVSA] to begin to deal more systematically with this
challenge. FHWA reports that the State enforcement plans show
that more States are realizing that they have a verification
problem. Through a variety of mechanisms, FHWA has been
encouraging the States to pay more attention to this issue. For
example, FHWA has completed a best practices manual that was
developed primarily by a peer review group of MCSAP officers,
working with CVSA and a university. FHWA also has sponsored two
ITS projects to test technologies that may eventually help
address this problem. As part of its fiscal year 1996 ITS/CVO
request, FHWA has proposed and the Committee has recommended
the funding of $400,000 to develop a model out-of-service
prototype system.
Despite these positive accomplishments, recent data
compiled by FHWA showed that more than 21 percent of the
drivers/vehicles that were observed during covert enforcement
projects and then rechecked for compliance violated an out-of-
service order. State data submitted to FHWA also showed that
some of the drivers that violated an out-of-service order were
not even issued a citation. The Committee reminds FHWA that the
Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1990 required FHWA to ensure that
the States receiving MCSAP have in place ``a system for
ensuring that appropriate State penalties are assessed for
failure to correct any such safety violation.'' The Committee
believes that both FHWA and the MCSAP community should be more
concerned that too many drivers are not complying with orders
to get imminently hazardous violations repaired and are
deliberately trying to subterfuge the intent of MCSAP.
FHWA reports that some States are not collecting useful
data on their covert operations even though FHWA requires this
information as part of the MCSAP, some seven States are
spending less than 20 hours a year conducting covert
verification activities, and about one-half of the States are
actually rechecking more than 20 vehicles a year using a covert
strategy. FHWA is expected to work with the States to address
these deficiencies.
Covert surveillance has a valuable role in the MCSAP, even
if used sparingly, to periodically suppress the temptation to
jump out-of-service orders and to quantify and monitor the
extent of this problem. The Committee realizes that covert
verification is expensive, but this essential enforcement
strategy protects the integrity of the entire MCSAP.
Consequently, the Committee directs that no less than
$2,000,000 be allocated for the conduct of covert operations.
FHWA must ensure that these funds are used to support covert
operations in addition to those originally planned in each
State's enforcement plan [SEP]. The Committee wants these
additional funds to be used throughout the year. Because FHWA
is using a substantial portion of the fiscal year 1995 funds
allocated for covert operations to characterize the type of
motor carrier operation that is associated with those drivers
most likely to violate an out-of-service order, the Committee
directs that the funds provided in fiscal year 1996 be used
only for covert enforcement activities, that is, to recheck
drivers/vehicles that may be attempting to violate an out-of-
service order. FHWA will continue to use a portion of
reallocated funds to encourage covert verification activities.
The Committee objects to the House recommendation regarding
covert verification for several reasons:
One: Funds for this essential activity should not depend
upon the uncertain availability of reallocated moneys.
Two: There is no assurance that a sufficient number of
covert operations will be conducted throughout the year and
that baseline monitoring data on the extent of the verification
problem will be available for review by the Committee. The
House language allows funds for compliance reviews and other
enforcement strategies which may be conducted many months after
a driver has violated an out-of-service order. Not only could
these strategies pose legal uncertainties making an enforcement
action less certain, but they may allow a vehicle in an
imminently hazardous condition to return to our Nation's
highways.
Three: The amount recommended is insufficient, given the
size of the verification challenge.
Before April 1, 1996, FHWA is directed to submit to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a report which
presents: (1) data on the results of covert operations
conducted during fiscal years 1995 and 1996 (as of December 31,
1995); (2) data showing that each State receiving MCSAP dollars
is conducting an appropriate number of covert operations; (3)
data showing that each State adjusts the extent and scope of
its covert verification activities in relationship to the
extent and nature of its verification challenge; (4) a
description of changes that each of the States has made to
their MCSAP in response to the best practices manual issued by
FHWA; (5) evidence that the States are conducting covert
verification activities throughout the year; and (6) a
description of the penalties imposed by each of the States for
violating an out-of-service order and the means used by each
State or FHWA to publicize the actions taken against drivers
that violate out-of-service orders. FHWA should collect similar
data on fiscal year 1996 MCSAP activities in anticipation of a
future reporting requirement.
The Committee appreciates the progress FHWA and various
MCSAP officers are making to increase the number of States that
place U.S. DOT numbers on traffic citations issued to
commercial motor vehicle operators. The Committee believes that
this information will provide additional input into the
selective compliance and enforcement [SCE] system which is used
to select which motor carriers should receive a compliance
review.
Surface Transportation Projects
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $352,055,000
Rescission (prior-year balances).................... (12,004,000)
Budget estimate, 1996...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation
39,500,000
The administration's budget did not propose new funding in
fiscal year 1996 to continue demonstration projects. Rather,
the budget proposed that appropriated demonstration projects
that will be continued for fiscal year 1996 and thereafter with
spending of prior-year balances controlled by obligation
limitations of $25,000,000 from trust funds and $65,000,000
from general funds.
The House has not included any additional general funds for
surface transportation projects which are authorized in
existing law or had received prior appropriations.
The Committee has included funding for several highway
projects that had received general funds in the past from the
Committee and that could be completed with a final funding
installment. All of the funding will be used for final
construction only and meet prior commitments. None of the funds
are for new projects or activities that are preliminary to
construction. The Committee expects that this will be the last
appropriation of general funds for each of the listed projects.
Lock & dam 4, Arkansas.................................. $4,000,000
State Route 2 (Merritt's Creek Connector), West Virginia 9,050,000
Vermillion-Newcastle, SD................................ 2,800,000
Springfield-Niobrara, NE................................ 3,400,000
6th/7th St., Brownsville, TX............................ 500,000
Brownsville rail relocation, Texas...................... 3,000,000
34th Street, Moorhead, MN............................... 5,300,000
Des Moines to Ottumwa, IA............................... 6,450,000
I-10/610 Interchange, Louisiana......................... 5,000,000
NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
Summary of Fiscal Year 1996 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
mounting number of deaths, injuries, and economic losses
resulting from traffic crashes on the Nation's highways. New
responsibilities were enacted later for improving automotive
fuel economy and instituting other consumer programs. 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. 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. 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. Grants are funded as
contract authority and apportioned by formula to the States.
Incentive grants are also allocated to the States for driver
impairment safety programs under title 23, United States Code,
section 410. In addition, some Federal-aid highway
apportionments may be transferred, pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 153,
to States that have not put motorcycle helmet and safety belt
use laws into effect.
The Committee recommends a total program level of
$276,950,000 for the activities and programs of the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration for fiscal year 1996.
This is $63,392,000 less than the budget request and $1,778,000
less than the House allowance.
The following table summarizes the Committee
recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
Program 1995 program 1996 budget Houseallowance Committee
level estimate recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations and research............................ 126,553 144,342 125,329 121,605
(Trust fund)................................... (46,997) (59,744) (52,012) (50,344)
Highway traffic safety grants:
(Liquidation of contract authority)............ (151,000) (180,000) (153,400) (155,100)
Safety formula grants \1\...................... 123,000 168,600 126,000 128,000
Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures \1\... 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000
National Driver Register \1\................... 3,400 2,400 2,400 2,100
------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................ 277,953 340,342 278,729 276,705
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Obligation ceiling on contract authority.
Operations and Research
(including trust funds)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Trust Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1995.... $79,556,000 $46,997,000 $126,553,000
Budget estimate, 1996... 84,598,000 59,744,000 144,342,000
House allowance......... \1\ 73,316,570 52,011,930 \1\ 125,328,50
0
Committee recommendation 71,261,000 50,344,000 121,605,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include $4,547,185 rescission.
The bill includes an appropriation of $121,605,000 for
operations and research, which is $22,737,000 less than the
budget request and $3,723,500 less than the House allowance.
This level of funding provides for 644 full-time permanent
positions, as requested in the budget. The position and FTE
levels by program are listed in the table. The amount
appropriated is to be distributed as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
1995 Fiscal year Committee
Program appropriation 1996 budget Houseallowance recommendation
level estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rulemaking...................................... $11,136 $14,787 $12,420 $12,422
(Positions)................................. (95) (95) (95) (95)
Enforcement..................................... $18,028 $19,737 $19,211 $17,670
(Positions)................................. (103) (103) (103) (103)
Highway safety.................................. $39,039 $50,681 $44,455 $42,169
(Positions)................................. (203) (203) (203) (203)
Research and analysis........................... $50,885 $52,437 $42,737 $44,657
(Positions)................................. (132) (132) (132) (132)
Office of Administrator......................... $3,683 $3,820 $3,820 $3,820
(Positions)................................. (41) (41) (41) (41)
General administration.......................... $8,952 $9,038 $8,938 $8,658
(Positions)................................. (90) (90) (90) (90)
Grant administration reimbursement.............. -$6,043 -$6,158 -$6,043 -$6,158
Accountwide adjustments......................... .............. .............. $209 -$1,633
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... $125,680 $144,342 $125,329 $122,605
(Positions)............................... (664) (644) (644) (644)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjustments have been made to the administration's
requested level in the following accounts:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
1996 budget Committee
request recommendations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rulemaking:
Vehicle safety standards.......... 850 -200
Fuel economy program.............. 2,285 -2,165
Enforcement:
Auto safety hotline............... 1,667 -1,567
Vehicle safety compliance......... 5,353 -500
Highway safety programs:
Safe communities injury control... 5,600 -5,225
Alcohol, drug and State programs.. 10,815 -2,453
National occupant protection...... 6,400 -534
Driver fatigue and inattention.... ............... +1,000
Child safety seat program......... 1,600 -1,200
Enforcement and emergency service. 2,728 -300
Highway safety research (older
driver).......................... 390 +200
Research and analysis:
Biomechanics safety and research
systems.......................... 7,450 -1,290
Partnership for a new generation
of vehicles [PNGV]............... 5,000 -5,000
National Center for Statistics and
Analysis......................... 18,815 -1,490
Fatal accident reporting
system....................... (5,000) (-300)
National accident sampling
system....................... (9,500) (-300)
Data analysis program......... (2,000) (-500)
State data systems............ (2,000) (-390)
General administration:
Program evaluation (Anti-Car Theft
Act)............................. 489 -180
Strategic planning................ 200 -200
Accountwide adjustments............... ............... -1,633
Administrative services........... ............... (-623)
Computer support.................. ............... (-579)
Travel............................ ............... (-50)
Bonuses........................... ............... (-200)
Overtime.......................... ............... (-60)
Training.......................... ............... (-93)
Field office expenses/regional
offices.......................... ............... (-28)
---------------------------------
Net change to budget request.... ............... -22,737
------------------------------------------------------------------------
rulemaking
Anticipated rulemakings.--NHTSA testified that during
fiscal year 1995 final regulations requiring head injury
protection, dynamic side impact protection for light trucks and
vans, upgraded child safety seats, truck underride devices, and
rear door latch strength are expected. In fiscal year 1996
NHTSA anticipates regulatory action on rollover stability and
labeling.
The Committee notes the delay in issuance of the head
impact final rule which ISTEA required the Secretary to issue
by February 1995. NHTSA estimates that head impacts with
vehicle pillars, roof side rails, windshield headers, and rear
headers result in nearly 3,000 passenger car occupant
fatalities and more than 400 occupant fatalities in light
trucks and vans each year. NHTSA estimates that the proposed
final rule should decrease the number of these fatalities by
about one-third.
Vehicle safety standards.--The Committee recommends
$650,000 for the vehicle safety standards program, the same as
the House and an increase of $150,000 over the fiscal year 1995
enacted level. The budget request was $850,000 for this
account. The Office of Safety Performance Standards requested
$300,000 for consumer information. The Committee's allowance
includes $150,000 to complete this work. A major portion of the
survey design, collection, and evaluation activity needed to
obtain this information should be conducted using existing
headquarters and regional staff. With the increased flexibility
provided to the States under the section 402 program, NHTSA
regional personnel will have sufficient time to help collect
survey data. This will enable regional staff to contribute to
an agency function which traditionally has not received their
direct assistance.
The Committee maintains that NHTSA could develop the
consumer brochure on alternative-fueled vehicles using its own
personnel and, therefore, the $50,000 requested for this
activity is denied. Any funds needed to publish and distribute
this document should be obtained from NHTSA's printing funds.
New car assessment program [NCAP].--The Committee
recommends $2,792,000 for the NCAP Program, the same amount
requested in the budget but $1,057,000 more than the amount
provided by the House. The Committee disagrees with the House
recommendation to reduce funding for promotional activities
related to NCAP. The NCAP promotional program is designed to
improve NHTSA's responsiveness to consumer and media requests
for NCAP vehicle safety test results, and as such, is a vital
and visible liaison with the driving public.
The Committee has provided $857,000 for NCAP side impact
testing. The amount could provide for the testing of up to 27
vehicles in fiscal year 1996.
NHTSA has informed the Committee that for model year 1996,
40 percent of the passenger car fleet must meet the upgraded
side impact standard. More than 60 different makes and models
will be certified by the manufacturers as meeting the new
requirements in model year 1996. The Committee understands that
manufacturers are scheduling new model introductions that
incorporate the changes to meet the new standard. Many of these
models will remain unchanged for several years.
There may be ways to improve the dissemination of test
results. Several experts have expressed their concern regarding
the need to improve the display of NCAP information or to
better explain its current star rating system. The Committee
directs NHTSA to revisit the issue of how this information can
best be presented to consumers.
Fuel economy program.--The Committee recommends $120,000
for the fuel economy program, which is $2,165,000 below the
amount requested. The House provided $285,000 for this account.
This recommendation will allow continuation of NHTSA's ongoing
activities at the same amount provided for during fiscal year
1995. This amount does not allow continuation of one-time
expenses incurred in fiscal year 1995 for the mandated study on
the uses of light trucks and vans.
The Committee also has not provided the funds requested for
the environmental assessment on CAFE. The agency has the
flexibility to use its own staff to prepare environmental
assessments when a rulemaking action would not have a
significant effect on the environment, for example, when fairly
minor increases in CAFE such as 0.1 miles to 0.2 miles per year
are proposed. In addition, the Committee has not been convinced
of the need for an expansion of studies on new fuel economy
technologies. The Department of Energy [DOE] conducts similar
research and budget limitations should encourage NHTSA to work
more closely with DOE.
Theft protection program.--The Committee provides $110,000,
the administration's requested level, and disagrees with the
House's increase of $890,000 to pilot test an information
system. The Committee believes funding such a pilot initiative
would be premature. Investing in a multistate titling system
first requires establishing titling uniformity among States;
without uniform definitions of terms such as ``salvage
vehicle,'' sharing such inconsistent information among States
would be almost useless. The establishment of titling
uniformity was a key recommendation of the Motor Vehicle
Titling, Registration and Salvage Advisory Committee,
established by the Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992. The Department
has indicated it is drafting Federal legislation to establish
State uniformity. Until such consistency is in place, the
Committee believes that implementing a titling system is
unjustified. In addition, current fiscal constraints demand
that new initiatives are most appropriate for activities
supporting NHTSA's primary mission of improving highway safety.
Uniform tire quality grading standards.--The House bill
includes a prohibition on any rulemaking which would require
that passenger car tires be labeled to indicate their low
rolling resistance, or fuel economy characteristics. The
Committee has struck the House provision, and does not include
any such limitation or prohibition on rulemakings in respect to
grading standards for tires.
enforcement
Odometer fraud program.--The Committee has provided a total
of $100,000 for the Odometer fraud program. Odometer fraud is a
crime that costs consumers over $3,000,000,000 each year by
falsely inflating the cost of used cars and causing unplanned
maintenance and repair costs. These funds will help NHTSA's
efforts to investigate such illegal activities.
Defect investigations.--The Committee has provided
$2,460,000 for defects investigation activities. The defects
investigation program seeks data from consumers on potential
defects, performs tests and surveys on vehicle equipment, and
conducts detailed investigations to identify vehicle safety
risks. When unreasonable safety risks are identified, efforts
are initiated to obtain a safety recall from the manufacturer.
The program's auto safety hotline provides requested highway
safety information to consumers and obtains motor vehicle
safety defect reports from consumers to assist NHTSA in
initiating investigations.
Auto safety hotline.--The Committee recommends $657,000 for
the auto safety hotline and stipulates that the additional
$100,000 provided above the fiscal year 1995 appropriations
will be used to hire additional contractors to improve
responses leading to possible defect investigations. The
Committee has reduced the request by $1,567,000 because of
budget constraints and the need to fund higher priority
requests.
One of the stated justifications for the substantial
increase for the hotline was to establish a single point of
contact for consumer inquiries to NHTSA. Although customer
service is important, it does not need to be as expensive as
proposed. The Committee believes that the agency should train
its staff to refer calls expeditiously to appropriate offices.
This would obviate the need for costly improvements in
communications infrastructure. NHTSA should revisit its
expensive proposal and find a more cost-effective means of
improving customer service.
Vehicle safety compliance.--The Committee has provided
$4,853,000, which is $500,000 less than the amount requested,
for vehicle safety compliance activities. The Vehicle Safety
Compliance Program ensures that all motor vehicles and motor
vehicle equipment sold in the United States will provide the
safety benefits associated with all Federal safety standards.
Given the level of defect investigations and recalls each year,
as well as the importance of complex safety standards, the
Committee believes that it is essential to provide adequate
funding for the Vehicle Safety Compliance Program in fiscal
year 1996.
highway safety programs
Safe communities injury control.--The Committee provides
$375,000 for three demonstrations of the community injury
control partnerships, which is $5,225,000 less than the budget
request. The ability to cost share will be one of the criteria
on which potential grantees will be evaluated. NHTSA will
ensure that these demonstrations compliment and do not
duplicate injury control projects sponsored by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention. These funds will allow NHTSA to
work with three communities in different States to obtain
quantitative data on benefits and costs and a compilation of
best practices that will be useful in improving the safe
communities initiative. These demonstrations are scheduled to
run for at least 3 years. In view of the time required to
conduct such evaluations and to publish results, the full
benefits of these demonstrations are not anticipated until 1999
at the earliest. The Committee believes that injury control is
such an important objective that waiting for these results
before initiating the safe communities program would not be in
the public interest. Consequently, funds to implement this
initiative are not recommended under the section 402 program.
Alcohol, drug, and State programs.--The Committee commends
NHTSA for implementing the safe and sober campaign, a program
which primarily addresses alcohol impairment and seat belt use.
As structured by NHTSA, this well planned initiative provides
considerable flexibility to the States, and offers innovative
quarterly campaign documents that have been well received by
the safety community. Because of budget limitations, the
Committee is providing $8,362,000, and is unable to provide the
additional $2,453,000 requested to expand this program and the
safe and sober campaign. The funds recommended, however, will
allow for adequate dissemination of the necessary public
information campaign materials, and will sponsor statewide
demonstration projects to illustrate how periodic, highly
publicized law enforcement can achieve significant progress
toward a reduction in the number of deaths and injuries from
alcohol impairment and failure to use occupant protection.
Local technical assistance centers.--The Committee
maintains that the Local Technical Assistance Program centers
[LTAP] should play an increased role in highway safety by
serving as depositories of NHTSA documents and training
materials. This function is consistent with the legislative
mandate regarding LTAP centers to enhance programs for the
movement of passenger and freight. To this end, the Committee
expects the NHTSA Administrator to work closely with the FHWA
Administrator to improve NHTSA's use of and assistance to the
LTAP centers. NHTSA shall provide to each of the LTAP centers
training materials and various publications designed to benefit
State and local officials dealing with highway safety,
including driver behavior challenges and their countermeasures.
NHTSA shall widely publicize the availability of this technical
assistance to local governmental entities. This additional
assistance will be especially timely in assisting local
governmental entities and States in implementing the Safe
Communities Program, a new initiative funded under the section
402 program. Because of additional publication costs, the
Committee disagrees with the House proposal to reduce funds for
printing by $72,000. Increased coordination and cooperation
among the LTAP centers, the Governors' highway safety
representatives, and the NHTSA regional offices should be
encouraged.
Child Safety Seat Program (Patterns for Life).--The
Committee recommends $400,000, a reduction of $1,200,000 below
the budget request, for the Patterns for Life Program which is
designed to increase the safety of children riding in motor
vehicles, crossing the street as pedestrians, or riding on
bicycles. The program will focus on the proper use of child
safety devices such as child safety seats, bicycle helmets, and
clothing markers. The Committee expects NHTSA to combine
private sector efforts to distribute safety devices with public
sector efforts and to teach parents and other caregivers about
the proper use and effectiveness of these devices. NHTSA's
activities will focus on development, marketing, and
distribution of training and educational materials in formats
which widely diverse population groups may use. NHTSA also will
work with the enforcement community to promote the use of these
devices. The availability of a substantially increased amount
of private sector moneys only underscores the importance of
establishing a dedicated infrastructure to provide adequate
training and technical assistance to promote the highway safety
of America's youngest population group. NHTSA shall design the
overall program in such a manner that it will be self-
sufficient at the earliest possible date.
As originally proposed by NHTSA, the Patterns for Life
Program was intended to focus only on child safety seats. NHTSA
now supports an expansion of the program to the other areas of
child traffic safety identified above. This expansion is more
than justified, especially when one considers that there are
about 300 traffic-related deaths annually of children less than
15 years old riding on bicycles.
Emergency medical services [EMS].--The Committee fully
supports the amount proposed in the budget of $1,122,000 for
the EMS program. The House recommended only $870,000 for EMS
curricula revisions and other technical assistance activities,
but disapproved funding requested for public information and
education, communications, and research and evaluation
initiatives. The results of the 40 EMS statewide technical
assessments, performed recently by the States with NHTSA's
technical assistance, show that States need the most assistance
in these same three areas. Because the need for this assistance
is extensive.
The Committee wants to ensure that continued improvements
are made to the public education campaign entitled ``Make the
Right Call [MTRC].'' This program is already recognized as a
cost-effective activity to assist local governments and victims
of traffic crashes. By educating the public on how to access
EMS services, this campaign helps get emergency care quickly to
those who need it and also reduces costs by avoiding
unnecessary EMS calls. This campaign has been used by other
Government agencies such as the Maternal and Child Health
Bureau, DHHS, the U.S. Fire Administration, FEMA, and by health
care provider organizations such as the American College of
Emergency Physicians. The Committee agrees with NHTSA that the
results from the fiscal year 1995 five site evaluation should
be used to improve the campaign and aid in the development of
new materials for high-risk populations and cellular phone
users. In fiscal year 1996 new MTRC materials would be
developed to educate the public on when and when not to call
EMS, and what to do before the ambulance arrives. Limiting the
MTRC campaign, as proposed by the House, would result in wasted
public resources as evidenced by the high volume of calls that
divert EMS from real emergencies and increase health care
costs.
The Committee also supports NHTSA's work on building
statewide communications systems for EMS. Rapidly moving
cellular communication technology has created serious problems
for EMS providers and users. In particular, 911 EMS calls on
cellular telephones frequently are routed to answering points
well outside the local EMS response area. There is no universal
number to call for an emergency from a cellular phone. Together
with the cellular industry, NHTSA will develop technology to
address such challenges and improve the efficient use of EMS
resources throughout the country.
With the research and evaluation funds recommended, NHTSA
will be able to help States determine where resources can most
effectively be spent in EMS. These results will help build
partnerships with managed care and other health care
organizations to improve the Nation's health care system and,
at the same time, cut costs.
Police traffic services.--The Committee has provided
$1,306,000 for this account and has deleted the $300,000
requested for the large city injury control demonstration
project. This activity was not specifically recommended in a
recent TRB report on new directions in research to advance
police traffic services. NHTSA has been unable to obtain cost
sharing with other Federal agencies for this cooperative
project. The feasibility of using traffic enforcement as a
means of identifying criminal activities has been previously
demonstrated elsewhere.
Older driver.--The Committee recommends $590,000 for older
driver research, which is $200,000 above the request. This
important safety program, which has begun to yield new
knowledge to effectively address the older driver challenge,
was funded at $500,000 in both fiscal years 1994-95. The
additional funds recommended under the older driver program
shall be used to improve and initally test referral systems and
develop performance assessment techniques. This fundamental
research will lead to a full-scale demonstration during fiscal
year 1997 of technologies and practices that improve the
driving performance and licensing of older drivers at risk of
losing their licenses.
Younger driver.--The Committee requests the Administrator
to work with the Office of the Surgeon General to update
previous research on loopholes in State laws that adversely
affect enforcement of the minimum drinking age requirement.
This information is extremely important in helping to deal with
the younger driver challenge. Updated information should be
available before May 1, 1996.
Driver fatigue and inattention.--NHTSA data indicate that
in recent years there have been about 56,000 crashes annually
in which driver drowsiness/fatigue was cited by police. An
annual average of roughly 40,000 nonfatal injuries and 1,550
fatalities result from these crashes. It is widely recognized
that these statistics underreport the extent of these types of
crashes. These statistics also do not deal with crashes caused
by driver inattention, which is believed to be a larger
problem. The Committee maintains that NHTSA has not devoted
sufficient resources to understanding and dealing with the role
of driver fatigue, sleep disorders, and inattention in highway
safety. Consequently, the Committee's allowance includes
$1,000,000 to analyze the role of these problem areas in
highway crashes; to develop and test appropriate educational
countermeasures; and to develop a strategy and lay the
foundation for a public information campaign using a variety of
media and approaches. These activities will be conducted in
close cooperation with the National Center for Sleep Disorders
Research. In planning this initiative, NHTSA should include an
assessment of public knowledge and behavior before and after
the implementation of the public information campaign. The
Committee intends to recommend additional funds for completion
of the campaign and its evaluation in the future. The funds
recommended above are in addition to any support for studies
conducted under the ITS program.
Share the road campaign.--The Committee has invested
substantial sums under the MCSAP for the share the road
campaign and for traffic enforcement. Although no specific
funds are recommended herein for an increased role of NHTSA in
promoting commercial motor vehicle safety, the Committee
requests the agency to work more closely with the Office of
Motor Carriers, the International Association of Chiefs of
Police, other law enforcement organizations, and the National
Association of Governors's Highway Safety Representatives in
this area. The Committee encourages NHTSA to assist in the
dissemination of campaign materials and to encourage more
police officers to enforce regulations dealing with hours of
service competently.
Timely termination of ongoing activities.--The Committee
has supported NHTSA's investment in the DEC, NETS, TEAM, and
National Traffic Law Center. In response to the guidance
provided by this Committee, NHTSA has been steadily decreasing
its financial support of DEC and turning this responsibility
over to the States. NHTSA had intended to phase out its
financial support to other traffic safety promoting
organizations in a timely manner, but recent changes in
priorities have prolonged NHTSA's involvement. NHTSA needs to
use its section 403 seed moneys to assist other innovative
strategies and organizations. Consequently, the Committee
directs NHTSA to prepare a report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations by May 1, 1996, specifying its
exact plans for future financial support of each of these
activities, as well as any other traffic safety organizations
which have received support for more than 3 years. This report
shall specify the fiscal year when financial support will end.
For any activity requiring support after fiscal year 1997,
NHTSA shall specify the reasons for continued expenditures and
present a plan for eliminating its financial assistance to
these continuing activities at the earliest possible time. This
will force a rethinking of agency priorities and ensure that
funds are reserved for new and innovative approaches to traffic
safety.
research and analysis
Biomechanics.--In recent years, the Committee has supported
the biomechanics research program. However, budget constraints
do not allow funding at the requested amount of $7,450,000.
Instead, the Committee recommends $6,160,000, an increase of 10
percent above current levels. The Committee supports NHTSA's
effort to improve the head injury component of its biomechanics
program. Spending additional funds on countermeasures with
respect to traumatic brain injury addresses an important
societal need. Each year 75,000 to 100,000 Americans die as a
result of a traumatic brain injury, with motor vehicle crashes
causing one-half of all such injuries. Furthermore, a survivor
of a severe brain injury typically faces 5 to 10 years of
intensive rehabilitative services, with an estimated lifetime
cost of $4,000,000.
The Committee supports a demonstration of the feasibility
of the National Transportation Biomechanics Center, and urges
NHTSA to seek cost-shared funds or demonstrate use of the
center with other Federal entities as well as non-Federal
partners. The Committee directs that not less than $1,600,000
will be used to conduct research on head injury and to build
the technical expertise and management capabilities of the new
center. The center will serve the following purposes: expanding
DOT's expertise and capabilities to provide world leadership in
the advancement of biomechanics of impact injuries and
transportation safety; ensuring that biomechanics research is
complementary and not duplicative; providing biomechanics
information in all aspects of injury control; promoting injury
prevention, acute care, and rehabilitation; and improving,
promoting, and using the science of biomechanics in all
transportation modes, both within the civilian and military
sectors. Furthermore, the center will allow NHTSA to achieve
increased efficiency in the biomechanics program with respect
to bringing new and improved biomechanical tools (for example,
test dummies) into use by the Government and the industry, and
result in more rapid dissemination of useful research findings.
Before June 1, 1996, NHTSA should submit to both the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations a detailed review of
the progress made in demonstrating the feasibility of the
national center, a summary of cost-shared funds received or
interest expressed in the center, a detailed plan for
establishing the center, an evaluation of the benefits and
costs of consolidating the Department's biomechanics research
programs into the center, and a discussion of new technologies
that promise substantial breakthroughs in the science of
biomechanics that would be advanced at the center.
National advanced driving simulator [NADS].--The Committee
supports the NADS and recommends $2,000,000, the amount
requested in the budget, to continue progress leading toward
operation of a world-class research facility that will underpin
many future advances in highway safety.
The Committee opposes the House provision to rescind
$4,547,185 of unobligated balances for the NADS project. The
value and potential benefits of NADS needs to be emphasized.
In-depth studies of accident causation have found that human
factors, such as inadvertent errors of judgment, cognition,
recognition, perception or motor function and aggressive or
risk-taking driving behavior are contributing causes to more
than 90 percent of all traffic crashes. Research into the
fundamental nature of these causation factors is impeded
because of the risk of exposing human subjects to severe
physical injury. The national advanced driving simulator will
allow such critical research to be conducted in the safe and
repeatable confines of the laboratory. It will allow
researchers to better understand the effects of prescription
and nonprescription drugs on driving capabilities. In addition,
the NADS will be of particular benefit in addressing younger
and older driver issues and will contribute to the ITS program.
With respect to the younger driver, a major research
requirement exists for the safe and systematic investigation of
how various behavioral factors influence the crash frequency of
young drivers. With this understanding, more effective
mitigation programs in licensing, behavior modification, and
warning systems could be devised. The NADS is essential to
conducting this critical research.
With respect to the older driver, the NADS will allow
researchers to determine correlations between specific
defective driving practices or behaviors and specific accident
types, so that effective driver aides and scientifically based,
unbiased driver competency measures can be developed and
implemented.
The NADS will allow modeling and testing of designs while
new ITS technologies are still in the early conceptual stage,
long before actual hardware prototypes are available. This will
promote the low cost, low risk, development and fine tuning of
ITS technologies and greatly shorten the time for their
introduction into the marketplace. In addition, the NADS will
allow engineers to ensure that the interface between these
devices and the human driver is compatible, that is, the driver
is presented with the type and amount of information that he or
she can handle without causing distraction and information
overload problems. This approach is now successfully being
employed in the European Prometheus ITS Program using the
Daimler-Benz and Swedish driving simulators.
The Committee believes it is in the national interest to
build the NADS to ensure that NHTSA is not forced to continue
to depend on foreign-based simulators, such as these in Sweden,
Germany, and France, to conduct critical human factors
research. The Daimler-Benz simulator in Germany is used to full
capacity for vehicle product development, and no time is
available to any researcher outside the parent company.
According to NHTSA, the Swedish simulator is of limited
usefulness because of its low fidelity motion and visual
systems and its restriction to a fixed driving cab. The driving
simulator being developed in France will have a much more
limited motion-cuing system than NADS. Since this device is
being funded by the French Government as well as the French
auto industry, it is unlikely that testing time will be
available to United States researchers.
The Committee would like to address some of the arguments
made by the House to justify a denial of the funds needed to
continue NADS. The House report incorrectly states that only
two of the four conditions stipulated in the fiscal year 1995
conference report regarding future funding for the NADS have
been met. In fact, three of the four conditions have now been
met, and the fourth condition, having to do with a revised cost
estimate for the NADS, will be met once negotiations have been
completed with the phase II development contractor. In fact, as
directed by the fiscal year 1995 conference report and as
repeated here, no obligation of funds for the construction of
the NADS will be made until updated cost information has been
provided to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
Furthermore, the GAO reports that the total estimated project
cost for the NADS is now $37,100,000. However, GAO breaks this
figure down into the following components: (1) $32,000,000 for
the NADS facility, (2) $4,500,000 for program management, (3)
$200,000 for extension of the design contracts so that both
contractors could further evaluate the software being
contributed by the University of Iowa, (4) $175,000 to support
the University's interaction with the contractors during the
extended design contract, and (5) $255,000 for the TRB study on
NADS utilization mandated by the Congress. The Committee
believes these cost estimates are reasonable and justified and
recognizes that any further delays in the program would
accelerate cost increases.
In addition to meeting the conditions of raising the
required amount of non-DOT cost-sharing funds and securing the
GAO's certification thereof, which the House agrees have been
met, the third condition, pertaining to the TRB finding on
utilization of NADS, has also been met. Specifically, the third
condition as stated in the fiscal year 1995 conference report
reads as follows: ``The Transportation Research Board [TRB]
makes a determination that, if the driving simulator is built,
it is highly likely that NADS will be used to at least 80
percent of full capacity, as defined by the TRB, after a
startup period of 2 years; provided that for the purposes of
the TRB determination, no more than 50 percent of the capacity
usage is attributable to NHTSA.'' The finding of the TRB, as
stated on page 1-1 of its report to the Congress is as follows:
``The Committee, with one exception, believes that after a
startup period of at least 2 years, it is highly likely that
the national advanced driving simulator [NADS] will be used to
at least 80 percent of its design capacity, assuming that no
more than one-half of this use is attributed to the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA].'' Clearly this
third condition has been met, since 12 of the 13 members of the
TRB panel concur with this determination. The House did not
acknowledge the TRB's conclusion, and instead focuses on the
qualifications TRB placed on its conclusion.
The Committee strongly supports NHTSA's efforts to augment
its in-house expertise with technical and managerial support
from other Government agencies and outside experts that deal
routinely with the development and acquisition of high fidelity
simulators. To this end, NHTSA will put together a technical
management and acquisition team that is comprised of highly
experienced senior-level simulator experts both from outside of
NHTSA and outside the DOT. The Committee directs that
throughout the remaining construction and initial operation
phases of the NADS that this technical input continue.
Partnership for a new generation of vehicles [PNGV].--The
Committee has deleted funds for the PNGV program until vehicle
design is further defined by the participants in this program.
ITS strategic plan.--Several years ago, the Committee
directed NHTSA to prepare a 5-year strategic plan to guide the
ITS research and development program. Both NHTSA and the
Committee found this document extremely useful in
understanding, evaluating, and planning the program. The
Committee, therefore, directs the ITS Joint Program Office and
NHTSA to update this plan to deal with the fiscal year 1997
through fiscal year 2002 period, and also to assess progress
made regarding the objectives specified in the first plan. The
revised plan shall be submitted to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations before May 31, 1996.
National Center for Statistics and Analysis [NCSA].--The
NCSA continues to provide the analytical foundation for much of
NHTSA's activities. The Committee has carefully reviewed the
request for the center and has reduced funding only because of
budget constraints. The Committee is concerned that during the
1990-94 period, the NCSA experienced a 19-percent reduction in
full-time professional staff, while other NHTSA offices
experienced about a 5-percent reduction in full-time (including
professional) staff. This imbalance should be addressed as soon
as possible. The Committee strongly supports NHTSA's efforts to
use new technology to improve NASS data collection and expects
NHTSA to allocate no less than $300,000, the amount requested
by the agency, for this purpose.
NHTSA proposes to fund an expansion of activities similar
to the CODES project as part of its State data program.
Although the Committee supports the CODES activity, further
expansion beyond the amount provided in the fiscal year 1996
base is not warranted. Therefore, the Committee recommends a
decrease of $390,000 in the State data program, which is the
amount requested for an expansion of the CODES component.
Section 402 funds also may be used to improve traffic records
and to conduct CODES activities.
Each year, NHTSA conducts a variety of surveys to
accomplish various agency objectives. Often these surveys and
their design are conducted with contract funds at considerable
expense. The Committee believes that NHTSA's staff working at
the NCSA and regional offices could reduce Federal expenditures
by participating more actively in the design and conduct of
these surveys. The Committee directs the Administrator to take
the necessary steps to ensure that this occurs. Furthermore,
when the next position in the NCSA is filled as part of planned
personnel actions, the agency should give high priority to any
individual that can contribute to the mission of the NCSA and
is an expert in survey research methodology.
NHTSA and the highway safety community need updated and
accurate information on the costs to society resulting from
highway deaths and injuries and property damage. The Committee
directs that NHTSA update its 1990 cost of injury study as soon
as possible, but no later than May 1, 1996.
National Technical Information Service [NTIS].--NHTSA
submitted information that some of its reports and publications
were not entered into the National Technical Information
Service [NTIS]. The Committee believes that, whenever
practicable, reports and articles resulting from Government-
sponsored research should be entered into NTIS in a timely
manner and requests the Administrator to review agency policies
pertaining to this matter.
general administration
Strategic planning.--Due to budget constraints, the
Committee denies the request for $200,000 for strategic
planning, which should be conducted using internal agency
resources.
Anti-Car Theft Act evaluation.--The Committee believes that
NHTSA should conduct the study on the antitheft act using its
own staff resources and thus denies the request for $180,000
for contract support for this study. Within the Office of
Strategic Planning and Evaluation, there are four professionals
who conduct program evaluations.
accountwide adjustments
The Committee is limiting the growth in computer support
because this function has grown rapidly in recent years, going
from $1,610,000 in fiscal year 1992 to $2,552,000 in fiscal
year 1995. Budget constraints necessitate the need to reduce
moneys for electronic sharing of information, upgrade linkages
to regional offices, and computer imaging upgrades.
general provisions
NHTSA rulemaking on CAFE standards.--The Committee has
deleted bill language added by the House to withhold funds with
respect to a NHTSA rulemaking regarding corporate average fuel
economy [CAFE] standards (sec. 330). Funding issues regarding
CAFE standards are also addressed in previous portions of this
report.
National Highway Safety Advisory Committee.--The Committee
has deleted the House general provision (sec. 313) prohibiting
funding to implement section 404 of title 23, United States
Code, the National Highway Safety Advisory Committee.
Exemption to odometer disclosure requirement.--The
Committee has included a general provision (sec. 356) enabling
the Secretary of Transportation to administer and implement the
exemption provisions of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost
Savings Act. These provisions have, for more than 20 years,
exempted sellers of large trucks from the odometer disclosure
regulation because these vehicles (weighing over 16,000 pounds)
often travel more than 15,000 miles a month, and over the years
their odometers may turn over several times. Most purchasing
decisions with respect to these vehicles are based on service
and maintenance records rather than odometer readings.
Highway Traffic Safety Grants
(Liquidation of Contract Authorization)
(Highway Trust Fund)
Appropriations, 1995.................................... ($151,000,000)
Budget estimate, 1996................................... (180,000,000)
House allowance......................................... (153,400,000)
Committee recommendation
(155,100,000)
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
(Public Law 102-240) provides for the continuation of the
safety formula grant program. Grant allocations are determined
on the basis of a statutory formula established under 23 U.S.C.
402. Individual States use this funding in areas which have the
greatest potential for achieving safety improvements and
reducing traffic crashes and fatalities. Activities are
centered predominantly on efforts to control drivers impaired
by alcohol and drugs; stimulate activities to improve occupant
protection; improve traffic law enforcement and speed control;
improve the quality of emergency medical services and trauma
care systems; improve motorcycle, pedestrian, and bicycle
safety; improve the collection and analysis of traffic accident
data; and establish and maintain a computerized traffic
recordkeeping system.
The Committee recommends an appropriation for liquidation
of contract authorization of $155,100,000 for the payment of
obligations incurred in carrying out provisions of the State
and Community Highway Safety Program (sec. 402) and the
Impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive Grant Program (sec.
410).
The Committee has struck a new House 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
formula grants (sec. 402)
The Committee recommends an obligation limitation of
$128,000,000 for the section 402 State and community highway
safety grants program, which is $5,000,000 above the fiscal
year 1995 appropriations for the section 402 program, and
$40,600,000 less than requested. The Committee directs that the
States pass through $5,000,000 to local communities to
implement the safe communities initiative. NHTSA shall ensure
that these moneys do not supplant assistance to local
governmental entities previously provided under the base
section 402 program.
The Committee maintains that the safe communities
initiative is an excellent application of the seed money
concept and thus is consistent with the purposes and intent of
the section 402 program. The safe communities program would
build upon the successes of over 400 community traffic safety
programs [CTSP] by encouraging increased participation by
businesses and public health organizations, among others, in
local traffic safety efforts. Although some CTSP's already draw
upon the business or medical community, there are numerous
opportunities to maximize the contributions of these groups to
highway safety.
These entities will bring new data, ideas, and resources to
community-level safety programs. The safe communities concept
also offers an opportunity to generate additional local traffic
safety activity in the many locations where CTSP's are not
located. The Committee encourages States, local communities,
NHTSA, and other participants in the safe communities
initiative to work toward the self-sufficiency of these
projects to ensure their continuation after the Federal grants
have ended.
The Committee objects to the language in the House bill
which would disallow the purchase of automobiles and
motorcycles with section 402 funds. The Committee contends that
the use of such equipment is consistent with the seed money
concept. Many States use such equipment to leverage additional
staff positions from State and local law enforcement agencies.
The equipment often is given to a law enforcement agency on the
condition that the agency dedicates additional staff to highway
safety-related education and enforcement programs. Once the
Federal grant has ended, the State or local law enforcement
agency must continue and assume full financial responsibility
for the staff positions while taking ownership of the
equipment. The equipment provides the incentive for a law
enforcement agency to dedicate additional staff to highway
safety. Furthermore, the Committee notes that the authorizing
statute did not prohibit the use of section 402 funds for these
purposes and that there is precedent for equipment purchases
with Federal funds, namely section 402 funds and MCSAP funds
are used to purchase equipment which is essential for program
implementation.
Section 403 and State and community highway safety program
administrative set-aside.--As specified under the Section 403
Highway Safety Program, the Committee recommends funding for
only 3 of 15 requested demonstration projects because it
believes that those grants moneys under the section 402 program
which are passed through to the local communities will be even
more effective than the proposed grants to academic centers,
trauma centers, hospitals, and other not-for-profit
institutions. The Committee expects that many local communities
will want to incorporate these institutions within their safe
community programs to be funded under the section 402 program.
The Committee, however, recognizes the value of additional
evaluations of safe community projects under the direct control
of local government. To this end, the Committee recommends that
$300,000 of the section 402 administrative takedown funds be
used to provide technical assistance to a wide range of local
communities and State governments. These funds will be used
either to develop the capability to evaluate, or to evaluate,
the benefits and costs of the safe communities program. NHTSA's
regional offices shall ensure that these funds are used to
obtain scientifically valid evaluations and that the
information derived from these evaluations are widely
disseminated. NHTSA is expected to work cooperatively with the
National Association of Governors' Highway Safety
Representatives to ensure that a sufficient number of
evaluations or reviews are conducted in a variety of local
communities so that documentation of promising strategies and
administrative arrangements are made available as soon
possible. These analyses will provide an opportunity to test a
diversity of approaches in different communities and to
determine which approaches work best under various conditions.
NHTSA will use this information to develop a safe communities
implementation resource document that can be tailored by any
community to meet its needs.
NHTSA has designed new performance-based procedures for the
section 402 program which provide substantially more
flexibility to State grantees. The Committee applauds this
approach which substitutes a process-dominated system
vigorously overseen by NHTSA to one that is outcome-based
placing much more responsibility in the hands of the States.
The Federal role will not be directive as to how results are
obtained. Instead, performance goals and measurements set by
the States will be of critical importance. The Committee
commends NHTSA for taking several steps to improve the Federal/
State partnership needed to promote traffic safety and looks
forward to continued improvements in this area.
STEP projects.--Several States, working with NHTSA as part
of the section 403 program, have demonstrated the effectiveness
of highly publicized enforcement efforts (also called STEPS)
that have resulted in significant increases in safety belt
usage and reductions in alcohol-impaired driving. For example,
North Carolina demonstrated that the ``Click It or Ticket''
campaign resulted in a dramatic 15 percentage point increase in
safety belt usage in just a few weeks. These gains in highway
safety were sustained with periodic followup activities. More
recently, demonstrations conducted in six States (Oregon,
Washington, New Mexico, South Carolina, Vermont, and Indiana)
have resulted in increases in safety belt usage that are much
greater than the average changes in nondemonstration States.
Similar programs have resulted in reductions in alcohol-
impaired driving. The Committee finds these results compelling
and urges NHTSA to work with States and local governments to
encourage the use of section 402 funds (including funds
provided for the safe communities program) to conduct similar
STEP projects involving periodic, highly publicized enforcement
to increase safety belt usage and to decrease alcohol-impaired
driving. NHTSA regional and headquarters staff should provide
data to various governmental entities showing the quantitative
benefits of STEP enforcement and education campaigns and
provide technical assistance when requested.
Younger driver set-aside.--NHTSA submitted substantial
evidence, based on State data, of the benefits of the fiscal
year 1994 and fiscal year 1995 $8,000,000 set-aside to address
the younger driver challenge to traffic safety. In addition,
NHTSA reports that the States planned $21,100,000 of underage
drinking and driving countermeasures in fiscal year 1994 and
$21,700,000 in fiscal year 1995, increases of 210 and 220
percent, respectively, over the base level of funding of
$10,000,000 of Federal grant funds spent during fiscal year
1993. In view of the continuing loss of life and numerous
injuries resulting from the over involvement of younger drivers
in traffic crashes, the Committee's allowance includes
$8,000,000 for the States to develop and conduct comprehensive
youth traffic safety programs, including combating drinking and
driving, increasing seatbelt use, reducing speeding and other
risk taking behavior, and furthering graduated licensing
programs. Especially in those States without graduated
licensing programs or zero tolerance laws, the Committee
expects a portion of these funds to be used to work with
concerned citizens and parents, State legislators, and
administrators to promote such initiatives; to conduct relevant
feasibility studies; or to defray startup costs implementing
one or more of these elements of a State comprehensive younger
driver program.
FORMULA GRANTS (SEC. 410)
The Committee proposes a total limitation of $25,000,000
for obligations to be incurred under the section 410 Alcohol-
Impaired Driving Countermeasures Program authorized under the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. The
section 410 program has provided incentives to States to
implement innovative strategies to reduce drunk and drugged
driving, and constitutes an essential part in the Secretary's
goal to reduce alcohol-related traffic deaths. To receive
grants under the section 410 program, States must satisfy
certain basic criteria established by Congress, including
prompt license suspension, legal blood-alcohol content levels,
sobriety checkpoints, self-sustaining community alcohol
programs, mandatory sentencing, and control of access to
alcohol by youth. Supplemental grant funding is available to
States that meet additional criteria, including .02 BAC laws
for drivers under age 21, open container laws, strict drugged
driving prevention programs, and mandatory BAC testing
programs. Section 410 grants funds may be used only to support
programs to reduce impaired driving.
The bill includes language providing that $500,000 of the
section 410 moneys shall be used for technical assistance. In
fiscal year 1995 the entire amount of these funds was used as
direct grants. Because this program continues to be
oversubscribed, the Committee expects a similar allocation of
technical assistance funds to be made directly to the States.
national driver register
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. As
authorized by Congress, the NDR has converted to an electronic
problem driver pointer system to facilitate the decisionmaking
by State driver licensing officials. NHTSA is preparing for
transfer of certain NDR activities to a non-Federal entity. 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 Committee has included a
provision in the bill, subject to authorization, extending the
authority to draw funds for the NDR from contract authority
authorized for the section 402 program.
The bill includes an obligation limitation of $2,100,000
for the NDR, which is $300,000 below the administration's
request. The Committee is most displeased that the
Administrator has not submitted promised legislation to
transfer certain NDR-related functions to a non-Federal entity.
Such a transfer would have saved about $1,200,000 annually of
funds for other critical traffic safety programs. NHTSA should
submit this legislation before conference.
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION
Summary of Fiscal Year 1996 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 plant
are also administered by the Federal Railroad Administration.
The Committee recommends new appropriations and obligation
limitations totaling $875,899,000 for the activities of the
Federal Railroad Administration for fiscal year 1996. This is
$321,522,000 less than the budget request and $47,958,000 more
than the House allowance.
The following table summarizes the Committee
recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
Program 1995 enacted 1996 budget Houseallowance Committee
\1\ estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Administrator..................... 12,869 17,370 14,000 14,018
Transfer H.R. 1944.......................... (612) .............. .............. ..............
Local rail freight assistance................... 17,000 .............. .............. ..............
Rescission.................................. -6,563 .............. .............. ..............
Railroad safety................................. 47,636 51,104 49,941 49,105
Railroad research and development............... 20,199 48,947 21,000 25,775
Northeast Corridor Improvement Program.......... 200,000 \2\ (235,000) 100,000 130,000
Alaska railroad rehabilitation.................. .............. .............. .............. 10,000
Rhode Island rail development................... 5,000 \2\ (10,000) .............. 2,000
Grants to Amtrak................................ \3\ 793,500 \2\ (750,000) 628,000 605,000
Next generation high-speed rail \4\............. 24,999 35,000 15,000 25,000
Penn Station redevelopment...................... 40,000 \2\ (50,000) .............. 25,000
Rescission.................................. (40,000) .............. .............. ..............
Railroad rehabilitation and improvement program. .............. .............. .............. ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... 1,114,640 1,197,421 827,941 885,898
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes reductions pursuant to sections 323, 330, and 331 of Public Law 103-331 and amounts transferred to
OST, salaries and expenses for civil rights activities.
\2\ Funding included under UTIIP.
\3\ Includes mandatory passenger rail service payments and a supplemental appropriation of $21,500,000.
\4\ Includes obligation limitation on contract authority of $5,000,000 in 1995-96.
Office of the Administrator
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $12,869,100
(Transfer H.R. 1944)................................ (+612,000)
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 17,370,000
House allowance......................................... 14,000,000
Committee recommendation
14,018,000
The Office of the Administrator provides support and
guidance on issues concerning the railroad industry and the
day-to-day operations of the Federal Railroad Administration.
The appropriation includes budget activities related to
executive direction and administration and policy support aimed
at resolving problems facing the railroad industry. For the
Office of the Administrator, the Committee provides
$14,018,000. The amount provided is $3,352,000 less than the
administration's request and $18,000 more than the House
allowance.
committee recommendation
The Committee makes the following adjustments to the budget
request for this appropriation:
Changes
Reduce new technical assistance program................. -$75,000
Reduce nonpay inflationary adjustment................... -581,000
Reduce unobligated balances............................. -2,462,000
Training................................................ -56,000
Inflation/vendor increases.............................. -67,000
Other services.......................................... -91,000
Travel and transportation of things..................... -20,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Net adjustment.................................... -3,352,000
Technical assistance program.--The Committee provides
$75,000 for this program, $55,000 more than that provided by
the House, but $75,000 below the administration's request for
an additional $150,000.
Nonpay inflationary adjustment.--Due to budget constraints,
the Committee does not provide an additional $581,000 for
nonpay inflation adjustments.
Unobligated balances.--The Committee has reduced the Office
of the Administrator's request by $2,462,000 due to high
unobligated balances which are available to fund programs under
this account. The Committee understands that of these balances,
$1,892,000 is reserved with respect to Union Station annual
mortgage payments and $1,089,000 is reserved for possible
Alaska Railroad liability payments.
Training.--The Committee reduces by $56,000 the budget
request of $122,000 for training and restores the account to
its actual expenditure amount during fiscal year 1994 of
$66,000.
Inflation/vendor increases.--The Committee reduces by
$67,000 the budget request for inflation or outside vendor
increases associated with contract support.
Other services (information technology).--The Committee
reduces the requested level by $91,000 to $600,000. This
contract support account had been increased from an actual
expenditure of $297,000 in fiscal year 1994 to $662,000 in
fiscal year 1995.
Travel and transportation of persons.--The Committee
reduces this account by $20,000 below the budget request for
$258,000.
Local Rail Freight Assistance
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $17,000,000
Rescission.......................................... (6,563,000)
Budget estimate, 1996...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation
...........................
The Local Rail Service Assistance Program was established
by the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 to provide
financial support to States for the continuation of rail
freight service on abandoned light density lines in the
Northeast. The Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform
Act of 1976 expanded the program to all States. In 1978 the
program was further expanded and amended to allow capital
assistance for rehabilitation prior to, rather than after,
abandonment. Amendments in 1981 prohibited the use of these
funds for operating subsidies.
The program was again reauthorized in 1989 under Public Law
101-213 and renamed the ``Local Rail Freight Assistance
Program'' and then again reauthorized in 1993. The Committee
has not provided any funds for this program which expired at
the end of fiscal year 1994. Congress has rescinded
approximately 39 percent of the fiscal year 1995 appropriation.
The Committee, however, recognizes the unique needs of
local freight railroads and the important services they
provide. Therefore, the Committee has appropriated funds under
a separate account to support a low interest, federally
guaranteed loan program to local freight railroads.
Railroad Safety
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $47,636,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 51,104,000
House allowance......................................... 49,940,660
Committee recommendation
49,105,000
This appropriation finances the development,
administration, and enforcement of programs designed to achieve
safe operating and mechanical practices in the railroad
industry.
The Committee recommends a $49,105,000 program level for
the Railroad Safety Program. This is $1,999,000 less than the
budget request and $835,660 less than the House allowance.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends the following adjustments to the
budget request:
Reduce other services by 2 percent...................... -$105,340
Reduce labor/management project......................... -350,000
Reduce educational and technical assistance............. -60,000
Delete nonpay inflationary adjustment................... -453,000
Reduce salaries and expenses............................ -740,000
Inspector trainee program............................... -50,000
Automated track inspection program [ATIP]............... -100,000
Permanent change of station moves....................... -140,660
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Net adjustment.................................... -1,999,000
Other services.--The Committee recommends $5,161,660 for
other services, the same as the House, due to budget
constraints. This is an increase of $130,660 over fiscal year
1995 and a 2-percent cut from the budget request.
Labor/management project.--Because of budgetary constraints
and questions regarding the appropriate balance between
enforcement-related functions and cooperative initiatives, the
Committee recommends $50,000 for support of the labor/
management safety project, which is $350,000 below the amount
requested, but $50,000 more than the House allowance.
Supplies, materials, and equipment costs.--The Committee
disagrees with the House reductions to supplies and materials
and equipment costs, and recommends $800,000 requested by the
administration for the information technology pilot project.
Small railroads educational and technical assistance.--The
fiscal year 1996 budget request includes $80,000 to provide
educational and technical assistance to small railroads. The
Committee has reduced this funding to $20,000. FRA inspects
these railroads annually and explains the regulations to
company managers and employees. Although these inspections will
still continue, budgetary limitations necessitate a reduction
in the amount of funds used for educational materials and
technical assistance.
Salaries and expenses.--The Committee notes the growth in
this account since fiscal year 1994, and reduces it by
$740,000.
Other reductions.--Because of budget constraints, the
Committee has reduced funds for trainees, ATIP, and transfer
expenses.
Safety initiatives.--The Committee commends FRA's
substantial efforts to improve the reporting of accidents,
casualties, and highway-rail grade crossing accidents.
Information supplied by industry is of critical importance in
strengthening the effectiveness and targeting of FRA's
inspection and enforcement activities. The proposed improvement
in reporting requirements, the additional flexibility provided
to industry, and the refinement of reporting thresholds are all
worthy objectives. The Committee fully supports FRA's effort to
increase the accuracy and consistency of its accident/incident
data base and expects FRA to pursue completion of the necessary
regulatory changes expeditiously. Final regulations should be
issued before next year's hearing.
FRA also should expeditiously complete cost-effective
regulations pertaining to the general revision of the power
brake rule, safety of roadway workers, general revision of
track safety standards, and tank car crashworthiness. FRA
expects to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking on passenger
equipment standards in fiscal year 1996 and a final rule by
November 1997. In view of the importance of this action, the
Committee expects FRA to hold to this schedule. This action
would be consistent with the Swift Rail Development Act of
1994, which requires FRA to issue initial passenger equipment
safety standards by November 1997. In combination these various
regulatory initiatives will improve railroad safety and
eliminate millions of dollars of medical and liability claims
and property damages.
The Committee acknowledges the substantial increases in the
number of tank cars inspected, operating practice reviews, and
signals inspected. The Committee looks forward to reviewing
similar improvements in other inspection areas, especially when
such inspections are guided by the national inspection plan and
other management strategies. The Committee also acknowledges
the closer and improved relationships of FRA inspectors to the
hazardous materials response community, improvement in grade
crossing and trespasser programs, increased attention to hazmat
shippers, and improvement in the handling of complaints from
industry.
Grade crossing safety.--The Committee supports actions
taken by FRA to improve grade crossing safety and looks forward
to reviewing other accomplishments of these key FRA staff next
year. However, FRA inspectors could make additional
contributions to highway/rail grade crossing safety.
During the last few years, FRA has been unable to achieve
its goal of encouraging each of its inspectors to participate
in at least four Operation Lifesaver [OL]-related activities
each year. In fact, during fiscal year 1994, FRA inspectors met
only 45 percent of the agency's goal regarding inspector
participation in this program. Although FRA is pursuing many
different approaches to improve grade crossing safety, the
Committee considers increased inspector participation in OL
activities essential. At next year's hearing, the Administrator
should be prepared to report on progress indicating that FRA is
well on its way toward meeting at least 75 percent of the
agency's OL goal.
Multiple safety offices.--The Committee notes that in some
States FRA has three inspector offices and in one State there
are four FRA offices. The Committee believes that such
expenditures are unnecessary. The FRA Administrator is directed
to take the necessary steps to limit the number of FRA offices
to no more than two in any State. These closures should occur
as soon as possible, certainly before October 1, 1996. If FRA
judges it imperative that a State have more than two offices,
the Committee expects to receive a letter justifying such a
decision.
Enforcement effectiveness and vitality.--FRA data show
that, by a variety of measures, railroad safety continues to
improve. This improvement is a tribute to the efforts of
industry, labor, and FRA. FRA's enforcement program has
certainly been a contributor to the substantial improvements in
railroad safety during the last 10 or more years. The Committee
wants to ensure that the effectiveness and vitality of this
program increases, while the Agency builds a more cooperative
relationship with industry and labor.
The Committee, however, is becoming increasingly concerned
that FRA may be reducing the effectiveness and vitality of its
enforcement program. FRA submitted fiscal year 1994 data
showing that the amount of assessed and collected civil
penalties declined significantly from fiscal years 1992-93. For
example, FRA data show that the amount collected in fiscal
years 1992-94 was roughly $16,700,000, $15,600,000, and
$8,000,000, respectively.
During the fiscal year 1994 inspection program, FRA
collected the least amount of civil penalties since before
fiscal year 1990. Although this decline is said to be due to a
reduction in the enforcement case backlog, FRA continues to
sustain a backlog of some $20,000,000 in potential civil
penalties.
While achieving compliance with the safety regulations is a
primary objective, the number of enforcement cases prosecuted
each year and the total amount of civil penalties collected
each year sends a message to industry and labor about the rigor
of FRA's enforcement program. A strong FRA enforcement program
catalyzes voluntary compliance.
Senior FRA staff indicated that a reduction in the number
of civil penalty cases and collections is likely to continue in
view of a new FRA program announced in March 1995. This Safety
Assurance and Compliance Program emphasizes assessment of
systemwide problems over routine inspections and also
emphasizes cooperative partnerships over enforcement.
The Committee supports the intent of the new policy to
focus on root causes of noncompliance and to focus enforcement
actions on serious problems. One of the components of the new
FRA compliance strategy is to hold in abeyance the collection
of large amounts of potential civil penalties against a company
that is not in compliance with the safety regulations. FRA
intends to monitor closely whether such a company comes into
compliance. If the company does, the enforcement case is
typically not pursued, provided that no imminently hazardous
violation occurs. If the company fails to make prompt
improvement in its compliance with the safety regulations, FRA
will assess civil penalties both for the original instances of
violation and the subsequent violation counts documented
through followup.
The Committee recognizes the potential value of this
approach in promoting partnerships while gaining maximum value
from enforcement powers. However, the Committee expects that
FRA will closely control use of this approach, employing
followup inspections to ensure that improvements in compliance
are prompt and sustained. Further, the Committee is concerned
that this approach not be viewed by the railroads as an
entitlement. Holding penalties in abeyance for widespread
noncompliance, by a railroad that has repeatedly been cited for
intentional or frequent violations of the same subject matter,
would be counterproductive and should not be a routine
compliance strategy.
Although a cooperative relationship with industry and labor
will, in some cases, promote compliance with the safety
regulations, FRA must not forego its strong enforcement role,
especially when the public's safety is at risk. As FRA admits,
``Of course, broad acceptance of this partnership principle is
based on the entire industry's participation.'' FRA knows from
experience that some railroads are more likely to cooperate and
comply with the safety regulations than others. FRA's
commitment to quality customer service should mean more than
joining in partnerships with rail industry and labor to promote
compliance.
The Committee asserts that it will be too late to shift the
pendulum more toward enforcement after a major railroad
accident. As it implements its new compliance strategy, FRA
must effectively use the enforcement authorities provided for
in the Rail Safety Acts of 1970, 1988, and 1992. These acts
provided the FRA with definitive enforcement authorities that
have been time-tested and proven successful.
To this end, the Committee requests the FRA Administrator
to prepare a report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations before May 1, 1996, that assesses the benefits
of its new enforcement posture and documents evidence that a
vigorous enforcement program is still being conducted by FRA,
while it simultaneously seeks cooperation from regulated
entities.
FRA should submit documentation proving that there is an
appropriate balance between the resources used to promote
cooperation and educational assistance and those used for
enforcement. The report should detail improvements, or lack
thereof, in compliance for each of the railroads for which FRA
approved a safety action plan.
The Committee will carefully review this report, changes in
FRA's enforcement posture, and various measures of enforcement
productivity as part of next year's hearing process when it
considers staffing needs and funding requirements.
Railroad Research and Development
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $20,199,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 48,947,000
House allowance......................................... 21,000,000
Committee recommendation
25,775,000
The Federal Railroad Administration's Railroad Research and
Development Program provides for research in the development of
safety and performance standards for high speed rail and the
evaluation of their role in the Nation's transportation
infrastructure. The program also provides support for the
Deputy Associate Administrator for Technology Development and
the staff of the Office of Research and Development.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,775,000
for railroad research and development. The amount provided is
$23,172,000 less than the President's request and $4,775,000
more than the House allowance.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommended funding levels for the railroad
research and development subaccounts are displayed below,
compared to the fiscal year 1996 budget request and the House
allowance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year House Committee
1996 request allowance recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment, operations,
and hazardous materials $5,010,000 $5,010,000 $6,163,000
Track, structures, and
train control.......... 8,082,000 8,082,000 7,082,000
High speed ground
transportation......... 33,225,000 5,378,000 10,000,000
R&D facilities.......... 400,000 400,000 400,000
Administration.......... 2,230,000 2,130,000 2,130,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total............. 48,947,000 21,000,000 25,775,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment, operations, and hazardous materials.--Consistent
with the authorization level specified in the 1994 Rail Safety
Act and the intent of the Department's grade crossing action
plan, the Committee has increased funding for Operation
Lifesaver to $500,000, which is $350,000 above the requested
amount. This increase reflects the Committee's concern that
more needs to be done to address safety at railroad crossings.
Railroad crossings are claiming an average of about 600 deaths
per year, far in excess of the average number of deaths among
railroad employees and passengers per year. However, the FRA
concentrates most of its safety budget on efforts to improve
safety for railroad employees and passengers. While railroad
work can be difficult and dangerous, additional money spent on
grade crossing safety certainly will be well spent.
On June 8, 1995, an Amtrak passenger train traveling at
about 70 to 79 miles-per-hour hit a pickup truck at a rural
crossing in Nyssa, OR, killing seven farm workers in the truck.
This terrible accident occurred at 5:25 a.m., as the victims
were on their way to work in the fields. This crossing is
marked only by a stop sign. Although this accident occurred in
clear weather, it underscores the fact that trains require long
distances in which to come to a complete stop even when
obstacles on the track can be seen.
In addition, the Committee's allowance includes an increase
of $803,000 above the amount requested to strengthen the human
factors component of the operating practices research program.
This research activity seeks to address human error in railroad
operations, which is judged the cause of roughly one-third of
all railroad accidents. The additional funds recommended will
allow for continued work on FRA's 5-year-strategic plan on
operating practices that was prepared at the request of the
Committee, and address fundamental problems such as fatigue,
stress, and various sociological problems affecting rail
safety.
Track, structures and train control.--The Committee
recommends $7,082,000 for track, structures, and train control,
which is $1,000,000 less than the amount requested. Some of the
activities funded in this category directly benefit the
economic productivity of the railroad industry, as well as
promote safety objectives. Increased cost sharing with the
private sector would be desirable.
High speed ground transportation.--The Committee recommends
$10,000,000 for the high speed rail ground transportation
program, including $3,800,000 to provide technical support for
monitoring, assessing, and issuing regulations to ensure the
safety of high speed rail systems.
--Magnetic levitation [maglev] systems.--The Committee has
deleted $825,000 for maglev safety research and
development due to highly uncertain prospects for near-
term commercialization and budgetary limitations. If
and when substantial non-Federal investments in a
commercial or prototype maglev systems are made, the
Committee will reconsider the need for funding safety
R&D related to this technology. FRA should continue its
work on developing the regulatory base for a future
maglev industry by analyzing the wealth of information
previously collected. FRA has sufficient funds and
experience to be able to evaluate the safety dynamics
of any serious proposal submitted for Federal review.
--Toll-free grade crossing malfunction emergency notification
system.--Section 301 of the 1994 Rail Safety Act
requires the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a
pilot program to demonstrate an emergency notification
system utilizing a toll-free telephone number that the
public can use to convey information about malfunctions
or other safety problems at railroad-highway grade
crossings. Implementation of the system will involve
building and maintaining current data bases which
contain information from the AAR/DOT National Highway-
Rail Crossing Inventory and contact information on
railroad and public safety telephone numbers.
Consistent with FRA's intention to fund this pilot
program out of the funds provided for high speed rail
R&D, the Committee recommends that $625,000 shall be
used for this pilot program, instead of the $725,000
that FRA stated would be necessary for initiation and
first year funding for the system. Funds have not been
provided to contract for the mandated report on the
results of this pilot program. This report should be
completed by FRA staff. This amount also does not
include funds for signage and its deployment. FRA
anticipates that expenses for these activities would be
paid for by the participating States using highway
funds. FRA will design the pilot program to ensure that
information on grade crossings located in both high
speed and conventional train corridors is included.
--High-speed positive train separation.--The Committee's
recommendation includes $5,000,000 for the State of
Oregon to develop high-speed positive train separation
with flexible block control capabilities, including an
extension into the Union Station area, and for
additional track and signal work. No matching funds
shall be required for this project. FRA maintains ``it
is likely that insufficient capacity will exist on some
corridors unless flexible block dispatching can be
implemented, rather than relying on fixed signal
locations as are presently employed.'' Furthermore, FRA
asserts that the Pacific Northwest corridor, with both
willing and interested freight railroads and States
willing and interested in supporting high-speed
passenger operations, is the ideal testbed for such a
system. The funds recommended will accomplish the
following objective in fiscal year 1996: modeling and
analysis, flexible block architecture, braking
algorithms, communications development, and track and
signal improvements.
Cost sharing.--By March 1, 1996, FRA shall submit to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a letter
indicating efforts taken to further increased cost-sharing
(both cash and in-kind services) needed to sustain a vigorous
railroad R&D program. Specific efforts taken in each of the
specific components, for example, truck, structures, and
hazmat, of the program will be delineated.
Public input into FRA's R&D agenda.--The Committee suggests
that FRA consider holding a series of public meetings to
outline the scope, direction, and results of its research and
development program and to gain input into the needed direction
for future activities.
Oregon Graduate Institute [OGI].--The Committee has
continued the provision providing the FRA with explicit grant
authority with the Oregon Graduate Institute. The OGI has been
identified as a national resource for research in rail
metallurgy. The administration continues to support its unique
grant arrangement with the OGI for research on surface and
subsurface initiated fatigue defects in rail steel.
Northeast Corridor Improvement Program
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $200,000,000
Budget estimate, 1996..................................\1\ (235,000,000)
House allowance......................................... 100,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 130,000,000
\1\ This account is proposed to be replaced by funding through the
Unified Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program [UTIIP].
Title VII of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory
Reform Act of 1976, as amended, created the Northeast corridor
improvement project [NECIP] to upgrade and modernize the rail
corridor between Washington, DC, and Boston, MA, the most
heavily used rail passenger corridor in the Nation. NECIP funds
are appropriated to the Secretary. Since 1985, however, the
actual responsibility for carrying out the improvement project
was transferred to Amtrak.
NECIP is the primary capital funding source for the
Northeast corridor. It has made possible the Nation's only
high-speed rail passenger service, with speeds between New York
and Washington of 125 miles per hour and regularly scheduled
travel time in as low as 2 hours and 40 minutes. Work is
underway to reduce travel time between New York and Boston to
under 3 hours. The Northeast corridor is used by some 210
million commuter passengers and 11 million intercity rail
travelers each year who otherwise would be forced to travel by
car or air on the region's heavily congested highways and
airports.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee has provided $130,000,000 for the Northeast
Corridor Improvement Program. The amount provided is
$105,000,000 less than the administration's request of
$235,000,000 within UTIIP, $70,000,000 less than the fiscal
year 1995 comparable appropriation, $30,000,000 more than the
House allowance, and $105,000,000 less than Amtrak's request.
Amtrak has requested $235,000,000 for improvements on the
Northeast corridor related to two areas: high-speed rail
infrastructure improvements between New York and Boston
required to achieve 3 hour trip time; and recapitalization of
the Northeast corridor (particularly between New York and
Washington), required to bring the railroad and its
conventional rail passenger equipment to a state of good
repair. The Committee has not provided any additional funding
for acquisition of high-speed trainsets.
The administration requested funding in the amount of
$235,000,000, primarily directed to New York-Boston high-speed
rail improvements and the acquisition of high-speed trainsets.
The House provided a total of $100,000,000. The Committee
recommends an appropriation of $130,000,000, of which
$65,000,000 is for recapitalization of the Northeast corridor,
and $65,000,000 is to progress the New York-Boston high-speed
rail program. Last year, following passage of the
Transportation Appropriations Act, Amtrak advised the Committee
that it would apply the funds differently than identified in
its grant request. The Committee expects Amtrak to follow
congressional direction on the use of funds and to seek the
approval of the Committee to reprogram funds in the event
priorities change.
Northeast corridor recapitalization.--The administration
requested $35,000,000 for improvements between New York and
Washington. The House included $79,300,000. The Committee has
included $65,000,000 for critical near-term recapitalization
work.
The Committee is extremely concerned that Amtrak and the
FRA have not adequately advised Congress of the alarming need
for capital improvements for the New York-Washington segment of
the corridor. The Committee directs the FRA to work with Amtrak
to prepare a joint transportation plan for the New York-
Washington segment of the corridor, similar to the
transportation plan completed in 1994 for the New York-Boston
segment of the rail line. The Committee is especially concerned
about the safety of the New York-New Jersey tunnels, which must
receive thorough review. Most tunnels are over 80 years old and
handle some 750 trains daily. By the year 2010, over 900 trains
will use these tunnels each day. The plan should detail the
state of the rail line, the investments necessary for its
recapitalization (including an allocation of costs between
Amtrak and the commuter authorities using the Northeast
corridor), and the capacity improvements required to grow the
railroad to meet the needs of intercity and commuter passenger
rail service over the next two decades. The plan should
identify how the costs for upgrading and maintaining the
railroad will be shared by users of the rail line. Moreover,
the plan must include the projected timing for when
expenditures will be needed. A copy of this plan shall be
submitted to the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations
by March 1, 1996.
New York-Boston high-speed rail improvements.--The
administration requested $120,000,000 to progress the New York-
Boston improvements. The House included $20,700,000. The
Committee recommends $65,000,000 for electrification,
environmental mitigation, and infrastructure improvements
included in the project.
Congress increased NECIP funding beginning in fiscal year
1991 to undertake a program of infrastructure improvements
required to reduce New York-Boston trip time to under 3 hours.
The program includes electrification of the rail line between
New Haven and Boston, which is essential for faster speeds and
increased acceleration, and modernization of the railroad
infrastructure and signal system to permit speeds of up to 150
miles per hour. It also includes a number of projects to
eliminate bottlenecks in heavily traveled commuter territories
in Connecticut, New York, and Massachusetts.
The project offers significant environmental and economic
benefits to a region with highways and airports at or beyond
capacity. It also is expected to play a major role in Amtrak's
ability to generate an operating surplus from its Northeast
corridor operations. Faster and more frequent train service is
expected to more than double current ridership, providing a
critical alternative to accommodate growth in regional
transportation. Significant air quality and energy benefits
also will result with electrification of the tracks, helping
States in the Northeast meet Clean Air Act requirements and
reduce the need for imported oil. The Committee has been
informed that Amtrak will complete a new ridership and demand
forecast study in September which is expected to verify and
update previous ridership analyses. According to Amtrak,
preliminary results indicate that previous ridership
projections are conservative.
Congress has already provided nearly $600,000,000 of the
total $1,000,000,000 required to complete electrification and
the other infrastructure work and environmental mitigation
necessary to achieve 3 hour service. Major track, signal,
bridge, and infrastructure design projects are currently
underway. The total project costs includes some $200,000,000 in
additional work recently imposed by the FRA to mitigate
environmental and rail line capacity issues. Amtrak expects to
complete the electrification design in October and construction
work will begin immediately thereafter. Electrified operations
are planned to begin in 1999.
High-speed trainsets.--The administration requested
$80,000,000 in fiscal year 1996 for high-speed trainsets and
facilities. The House did not include funding for this purpose.
The Committee has not included additional funding for trainsets
because it believes that Amtrak is poised to move forward in
the near future to advance the trainset procurement.
Amtrak's current Metroliner fleet is now 20 years old and
is reaching retirement age. The fleet of AEM-7 locomotives are
experiencing a growing number of mechanical failures and this
is increasingly undermining reliability, trip time, and on-time
performance. In addition, Amtrak must procure additional trains
in order to increase service to Boston following completion of
electrification. The acquisition of new high-speed trainsets,
capable of speeds up to 150 miles per hour, will enable Amtrak
to replace and modernize its Metroliner fleet. New trainsets
will also permit Amtrak to reduce trip time on the Northeast
corridor and reduce operating and maintenance costs associated
with the current antiquated fleet. Amtrak requested proposals
for 26 trainsets, which include two fossil fuel trains, in
September 1994 and expects to complete negotiations leading to
award of a contract in October 1995. Three vendor teams are
actively competing for the procurement contract.
The Committee is concerned that Amtrak may opt to defer the
trainset acquisition in favor of other capital needs. This
would be a mistake. If Amtrak is to have a future on the
Northeast corridor, it must reduce trip time and provide its
passengers modern and reliable trains in which to travel. The
Committee directs Amtrak to provide a detailed cash flow
analysis of required funding to complete the trainset
procurement, and an accompanying report on options for public
and private financing of the procurement, within 30 days of
enactment of this act.
Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Funds
(railroad credit enhancement)
Appropriations, 1995....................................................
Budget estimate, 1996...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation (loan guarantee auth...........................
Section 511 of Public Law 94-210, as amended (the 4-R Act)
authorizes obligation guarantees for meeting the long-term
needs of the railroads. Railroads utilize this funding
mechanism to finance major new facilities and rehabilitation or
consolidation of current facilities. The Committee has not
provided any new appropriations to subsidize new loan guarantee
commitments under this program.
The Committee, however, has included a general provision in
the bill, to create State infrastructure banks [SIB] that will
be able to provide loans to freight railroads, as well as
provide them with a wide array of innovative financial
assistance. Funds have been appropriated in the bill to support
the establishment of the SIB program, which is strongly
supported by the administration. SIB's will be structured to
assist transportation infrastructure projects, including
freight rail activities, and will provide loans; finance
various forms of credit enhancement; assist in the acquisition
or lease of rolling stock for the purpose of lease pooling;
provide backstop financing for construction loans; pool debt
issuances; and refinance of outstanding debt; and many other
financing programs.
The SIB's will provide a much broader array of modern
financial tools to freight railroads than the section 511 loan
guaranty program. Given the Committee's extremely limited
funds, it cannot fund the 511 program, whose single purpose
will be covered within the larger, and more innovative SIB
program.
Next Generation High-Speed Rail
(including trust funds)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Trust \1\ Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations,
1995............. $19,999,000 $5,000,000 $24,999,000
Budget estimate,
1996............. 30,000,000 5,000,000 35,000,000
House allowance... 10,000,000 5,000,000 15,000,000
Committee
recommendation... 20,000,000 5,000,000 25,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Limitation on obligations.
The Committee has provided $20,000,000 in general fund
appropriations for the high-speed ground transportation [HSGT]
program. This amount, in combination with the $5,000,000
provided in trust fund appropriations, yields a total Committee
recommendation of $25,000,000 for fiscal year 1996. The amount
provided is $10,000,000 more than the House allowance and
$10,000,000 less than the administration's request.
The Committee first provided funding for the Next
Generation High-Speed Rail Program in fiscal year 1995. The
program is authorized by the Swift Rail Development Act which
was enacted in 1994. The Committee commends the progress the
Department has made in implementing this new program and
recognizes the promise that the program holds for reducing the
costs of high-speed rail service, thus expediting its
implementation in the United States.
FRA has entered into a variety of projects to advance
various high-speed rail [HSR] technologies. The Committee
maintains that it is critical to complete the final
development, testing, and demonstration of these projects that
were begun in fiscal year 1995. These include the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year House Committee
1996 request allowance recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced train control.. $10,000,000 $9,000,000 $9,000,000
Nonelectric locomotive.. 15,500,000 .............. 9,500,000
Grade crossing hazards.. 7,000,000 4,500,000 4,500,000
Corridor planning....... 2,000,000 1,000,000 1,545,000
Administrative.......... 500,000 500,000 455,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total \1\......... 35,000,000 15,000,000 25,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $5,000,000 in limitation on obligation from the highway
trust fund.
Advanced train control.--FRA awarded a $6,080,000 grant to
Michigan in March 1995, to initiate a project to demonstrate
advanced train control on 44 miles of track on the Detroit-
Chicago corridor. This innovative project seeks to demonstrate
significantly improved grade crossing protection, positive
train control, and substantially higher speeds on the line. The
Committee's allowance includes $3,000,000, which is needed to
complete installation of this system. FRA also will soon award
a grant, using fiscal year 1995 funds, of $1,000,000 to
Illinois to begin a demonstration of advanced train control
system [ATCS] on a segment of the Chicago-St. Louis corridor.
The Committee's allowance includes $6,000,000 to advance this
ATCS demonstration of a full central command control system
using modern radio communications.
Nonelectric locomotives.--The Committee disagrees with the
recommendation of the House to eliminate the advancement of
nonelectric locomotives as part of the Next Generation HSR
Program. Success in providing commercially available, reliable
nonelectric locomotives capable of 125 to 150 miles per hour
would reduce HSR implementation cost by approximately
$2,000,000 to $3,000,000 per mile by avoiding the need for
electrification. Both Amtrak and FRA agree that additional
refinements and testing are necessary to provide a reliable,
maintenance-efficient, nonelectric locomotive capable of the
high acceleration necessary for HSR service. As the FRA report
on the Albany-Schenectady project indicates, the retrofit of
these turbine engines successfully demonstrate a top speed of
125 miles per hour. But, the demonstration also indicated that
additional work is necessary to address the issues of
acceleration, reliability, and maintainability, which are key
to successful HSR service in nonelectric powered fleet
operations. The favorable public reaction to the demonstration
train in revenue service, leads to the conclusion that
additional enhanced and upgraded remanufacture of high-speed
train sets will further nonelectric high-speed rail development
objectives. Given the uncertainty of the market for high-speed,
nonelectric locomotives, the Committee maintains that the
private sector alone is unlikely to address the many remaining
technical issues confronting the innovation of high-speed
nonelectric locomotives. Thus, these constraints are
appropriately addressed through the Next Generation HSR
Program. Consequently, the Committee has provided $6,000,000
for continuation of this program of development, testing, and
demonstration of turbine powered nonelectric locomotives
including in fleet operation in New York. The Committee directs
FRA to ensure that these funds be matched on a dollar-for-
dollar basis. FRA should be prepared to report next year on the
results of the demonstration with particular emphasis on
maintainability, reliability, fuel consumption, and operating
and maintenance costs.
FRA obligated $3,000,000 in fiscal year 1995 to upgrade the
high-speed test track at its Transportation Technology Center
in Pueblo, CO. This work is necessary to expedite final testing
of new and innovative equipment before it is put into revenue
service. Otherwise, such tests would need to be done on lines
in revenue service, thus disrupting service or maintenance
work. The upgrade will include catenary work and track work to
enable tests to 150 miles per hour and the capability for
testing innovative work on grade crossing hazards. The
Committee's allowance includes $3,500,000 to advance this work
to enable testing of Northeast corridor high speed transits in
fiscal year 1997 and other high speed equipment as necessary.
Grade crossing hazards and other innovative technologies.--
FRA will make grants in fiscal year 1995 totaling $1,300,000
for grade crossing and other innovative projects in Delaware,
Virginia, Idaho, and elsewhere across the Nation to enable
higher speeds without compromising safety. Advanced train
control systems will monitor and communicate train locations
and speeds and will stop the train if the crossing is not
clear. For example, four quadrant gates block all highway lanes
and provide increased protection with existing technology.
Movable barriers will protect crossings which cannot be closed.
The Committee's allowance includes $1,000,000 to complete these
projects and $3,500,000 to conduct a multifaceted demonstration
of innovative techniques for eliminating crossing hazards in a
high-speed corridor. Success in this area is essential for
effective, safe high-speed rail service.
Corridor planning.--Section 26101 of the Swift Rail
Development Act authorizes a corridor planning assistance
program to advance high-speed rail systems. The Committee
recommends $1,545,000 to implement this section of the act.
Eligible activities include feasibility studies, economic
analyses, assessment of community economic impacts, operational
planning, route selection analysis, and right-of-way
acquisition. These funds will provide additional leveraging
opportunities to advance high-speed rail systems in the United
States. The resolution of nontechnical as well as technical
challenges is essential for the implementation of high-speed
rail systems in the United States.
Corridor development.--The House Appropriations Committee
has addressed corridor risk analytical model development under
the ``Railroad research and development'' account. However,
this program received $300,000 within the ``Railroad safety''
account in fiscal year 1995. With these funds, FRA has begun
evaluating advanced train control and other system enhancements
in various proposed high-speed rail corridors, including
Detroit to Chicago, Chicago to St. Louis, and Seattle to
Portland. The Committee strongly disagrees with the House
directive for FRA to submit its corridor risk analysis
development plan before initiating further corridor development
work outside the Northeast corridor. Such efforts in corridors
outside the Northeast should not be delayed while awaiting an
FRA report.
NAS study.--The Committee directs FRA to request the
National Academy of Sciences [NAS] to assemble a panel of
experts who will guide and help integrate each of the
components of FRA's high-speed rail program. Unlike the House
proposal, the Committee believes that this request should be
for ongoing advice for the entire period of Federal investment
in high-speed rail technology. This panel will offer periodic
advice and guidance on the management, coordination, and
direction of the program. Therefore, the Committee's allowance
includes sufficient funds for the NAS to improve the structure,
focus, and nature of: (1) the ongoing high-speed rail safety
and technology research and development program, (2) the Next
Generation Technology Program, (3) the integration of the
research and development program with the demonstration
activity, and (4) other Federal policies and programs to
promote high-speed rail corridor planning and implementation,
including project-level planning, engineering, and operational
analyses.
The Committee expects that the strategic guidance provided
by the NAS panel would promote the likelihood that the advances
derived from the FRA-sponsored program are deployed in future
State or private sector high-speed rail projects. The NAS would
support FRA by selecting recognized experts from various
stakeholder groups and by coordinating review activities to
assure optimum program direction and results. The NAS panel
would be expected to issue progress reports to the Department,
with copies forwarded to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations.
The panel also should consider whether a private-sector led
consortium, similar to that established to plan and conduct a
prototype test of the advanced highway system, or some other
management structure should be formed to conduct the various
components of the high-speed rail initiative on behalf of or in
association with the FRA starting in fiscal year 1998.
Alaska Railroad Rehabilitation
Appropriations, 1995....................................................
Budget estimate, 1996...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation
$10,000,000
The Committee has included $10,000,000 for capital
rehabilitation and improvements benefiting passenger operations
of the Alaska railroad. This railroad extends 470 miles from
Seward through Anchorage, the largest city in Alaska, to the
interior town of Fairbanks. It carries both passengers and
freight, and provides a critical transportation link for
passengers and cargo traveling through difficult terrain and
harsh climatic conditions. Subzero temperatures in the region
result in frost-heaving of the railbed, and require costly
repairs and reinvestment. The Committee notes that
rehabilitation work on the Alaska railroad is more expensive
per mile than for most other railroads due to its location.
Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Project
Appropriations, 1995.................................... \1\ $40,000,000
Rescission.......................................... (40,000,000)
Budget estimate, 1996...................................\2\ (50,000,000)
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 25,000,000
\1\ $40,000,000 was rescinded in Public Law 104-6, but provided
$21,500,000 for emergency, life safety needs under Amtrak's capital
grant.
\2\ This account is proposed to be replaced by funding through the
Unified Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program [UTIIP].
The Committee has provided $25,000,000 for redevelopment of
Pennsylvania Station in New York City in fiscal year 1996. This
is $25,000,000 less than the administration's request. The
project was authorized for appropriation in the National
Highway System Designation Act, Senate bill 440, which passed
the Senate on June 22, 1995. The House did not provide funds
for the project.
The Committee is pleased that the State and the city of New
York have proven their financial commitments to this project,
with $75,000,000 and $25,000,000 budgeted respectively. The
Governor of New York State is chartering a State-subsidiary
corporation, the Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Corp., to
oversee the financing and redevelopment of the station. The
Committee believes that establishing a separate entity to
manage this major undertaking is a prudent step that will help
ensure the project's success, and the careful management of the
investment being made by all governmental partners. It is
structured with a board of directors consisting of two State,
two city, and two Federal representatives. For fiscal year
1996, State and local cost sharing is already in place,
demonstrating the importance of the project to the non-Federal
parties. Total project financing leverages the Federal grant by
a factor of 3 to 1.
Tenant leases and audit activities.--The Committee has been
informed by Amtrak that references in the House report to
various deficiencies uncovered by inspector general reviews are
extremely misleading. In fact, the Committee understands that
these audits were requested by Amtrak's new Commercial
Development Department in an effort to correct matters of
longstanding duration and that appropriate remedial actions
have been taken.
The Pennsylvania Station redevelopment project will provide
New York City a gateway station with a modern facility to
better serve Amtrak ridership.
Rhode Island Rail Development
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 1996...................................\1\ (10,000,000)
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 2,000,000
\1\ This account is proposed to be replaced by funding through the
Unified Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program [UTIIP].
For fiscal year 1995, Congress appropriated $5,000,000 to
fund construction of a third track on the Northeast corridor
between Davisville and Central Falls, RI, with sufficient
clearance to accommodate double stack freight cars. The
appropriation act stipulated that the State of Rhode Island or
its designee provide matching funds on a dollar-for-dollar
basis, and that the Providence & Worcester [P&W] Railroad,
which would benefit from the third track, enter into an
agreement with the Secretary to reimburse Amtrak and/or FRA up
to $5,000,000 for damages stemming from certain potential legal
actions brought by the P&W.
For fiscal year 1996, the administration proposes to
continue funding this project, with a dollar-for-dollar
matching requirement of the State of Rhode Island or its
designee and a requirement that the P&W enter into an agreement
with the Secretary to reimburse Amtrak and/or FRA up to
$15,000,000 for damages stemming from certain potential legal
actions brought by the P&W. The Committee is providing
$2,000,000 to continue the Rhode Island rail development
project.
Grants to National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
Appropriations, 1995....................................\1\ $772,000,000
Supplemental........................................ 21,500,000
Budget estimate, 1996..................................\2\ (750,000,000)
House allowance......................................... 628,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 605,000,000
\1\ Includes $150,000,000 for mandatory passenger rail payments
displayed as a separate account in fiscal year 1994.
\2\ This account is proposed to be replaced by funding through the
Unified Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program [UTIIP].
The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) was
established in 1971 to preserve and improve the Nation's
intercity rail passenger system. Federal assistance, in the
form of operating and capital grants, has been provided since
Amtrak's inception through the Department of Transportation.
Over its 23-year existence, Amtrak has succeeded in vastly
improving the economics of intercity rail passenger operations
and in expanding the demand for and quality of service.
The Committee has provided a total funding level of
$605,000,000 for Amtrak. This is $23,000,000 less than the
House appropriation and $167,000,000 below the fiscal year 1995
Amtrak appropriation. The administration's request for Amtrak
funding was included in the UTIIP proposal at $975,000,000 (it
rises to $1,035,000,000 if the Farley Building is included).
Amtrak's budget request was for a total of $1,010,000 (Amtrak's
request totaled $1,060,000,000 with the Farley Building
included).
The Senate and House budget resolutions call for Amtrak
capital needs to be funded, but would phase out Amtrak's
operating subsidy over the life of the resolution. Amtrak has
already undertaken plans for significant restructuring of the
corporation. Broadening and deepening its revenue streams are
vital to the railroad's commitment to wean itself from
dependency on Federal operating aid. The Committee appreciates
Amtrak's efforts to improve its fiscal health. However,
Amtrak's future depends, in large measure, on the success of
its restructuring plans and on Federal legislative action.
Amtrak's fiscal year 1995 strategic and business plan,
announced in December 1994, calls for reductions of 5,600 FTE's
(full time equivalent) on an annual basis. For the period
October 1994 through May 1995, 1,548 people left Amtrak's
payroll. The plan would restructure Amtrak's route network and
improve productivity. Amtrak expects the actions to reduce
operating expenses by about $200,000,000 in 1995, and
ultimately cut such expenses by about $430 million annually.
However, Amtrak estimates that about $21,000,000 of the
$200,000,000 it plans to save in 1995 is dependent upon
collective bargaining and/or legislative change. Although
legislation to reform Amtrak is under consideration in
congress, to date, no bills have been passed.
It is clear, however, that Amtrak remains reliant on
Federal capital investment to help produce greater operating
efficiencies, reduce maintenance needs, and improve revenues.
Meeting these capital needs present great challenges to the
Committee.
OPERATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year House Committee
1996 request allowance recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Routine operating
expenses............... $300,000,000 $216,000,000 $185,000,000
Mandatory passenger rail
payments............... 120,000,000 120,000,000 120,000,000
Transition and
restructuring costs.... 100,000,000 62,000,000 100,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee has provided $305,000,000 for operations,
while the House provided $336,000,000 for this account. Amtrak
has requested $260,000,000 for operations, a reduction of
$135,000,000 below its fiscal year 1995 appropriation for
operations. Amtrak indicates that its ability to continue to
reduce operating expenses depends on Federal capital aid of at
least $500,000,000 (including both ordinary capital for Amtrak
and Northeast corridor funds).
Mandatory passenger rail payments.--This appropriations
includes $120,000,000 for mandatory passenger rail service
payments, as requested by the administration. These payments
are made by Amtrak into the railroad retirement fund and the
``Railroad unemployment insurance'' account. Amtrak has not
requested these funds which it believes may total as much as
$135,000,000 and contends that the responsibility to meet these
payments lies elsewhere in the Federal budget. The Committee
appreciates the fiscal relief Amtrak could achieve if these
payments were deleted from its expenses. However, without new
legislative direction on this point the Committee must continue
to make these funds available.
Transition and restructuring costs.--The Committee has
provided $100,000,000 in transition costs, the same as the
administration's request and $38,000,000 above the House
appropriation. These funds will assist Amtrak in meeting the
varied costs, many of them personnel costs, associated with
streamlining and restructuring the corporation.
CAPITAL EXPENSES
The Committee has provided $200,000,000 for capital grants,
$30,000,000 less than the House allocation and administration's
request. Amtrak requested a total of $365,000,000 in capital,
an increase of $135,000,000 above fiscal year 1995. The
railroad contends that steep reductions in its operating
request are not feasible without significantly higher capital
funding.
It is difficult to quantify the effects of terminating
Amtrak on transportation, energy, and social issues. However,
the complete deletion of Federal support likely would
precipitate the liquidation of Amtrak, and cost millions of
dollars. Net Federal, State, and local government outlays could
even increase in the short run because of lower income,
payroll, and other tax revenues; costs that would appear
elsewhere in outlays; and labor protection obligations.
Amtrak's future.--The House has conditioned Amtrak's
appropriation upon the enactment of authorizing legislation
containing significant reforms, including labor reforms.
While the Senate Appropriations Committee has not fenced in
Amtrak's funding pending action by the authorizing committees,
Amtrak's long-term viability and continued contribution to our
national transportation system clearly depend on legislative
and managerial reforms. Amtrak officials testified that, in
order to continue to operate in a stronger, more businesslike
manner, Amtrak needs relief from many externally imposed costs
that are not directly related to train operations and for which
its primary competitors are not responsible. For example,
Amtrak argues for: freedom to collectively bargain labor/
management issues; more favorable apportionment of Northeast
corridor costs; a dedicated funding source; freedom to bargain
with States to achieve fuller reimbursement for the costs of
routes and services; elimination from Amtrak's operating budget
of the mandatory payment requirement for excess railroad
retirement and railroad unemployment insurance; freedom to
issue tax-exempt debt; tort reform; and other items.
The Committee believes that there are strong arguments in
favor of continuing Federal support for intercity passenger
rail service. It is crucial, however, that congressional
authorizing committees expeditiously provide the policy and
legal framework needed for such public service to be
successfully provided. This Committee must refer to current
laws when allocating transportation dollars, and cannot assume
that legislative reforms will be approved. Thus, within its
tight budget allocation, the Committee has sought to provide a
sufficient sum of grant funds for Amtrak.
State infrastructure banks.--Provisions included in this
bill create a program of State infrastructure banks which will
greatly enhance financing options for transportation projects
across the modes: aviation, highways, rail freight, transit,
ports, et cetera. There is a glaring exclusion from this
program--Amtrak. Amtrak is excluded because the administration
would have required an untenable amount of the Committee's
budget allocation to cover the risk of Amtrak's participation:
OMB would account for a loan to Amtrak in the same way as a
grant. The Committee's efforts to expand the use of its limited
Amtrak funds have been diminished because it cannot offer
Amtrak Federal loan guaranties. The Committee is hugely
frustrated with the administration's treatment of Amtrak which
has resulted in the Committee being unable to enhance Amtrak's
access to tools of modern financial management, and less
Federal assistance for the railroad.
The Committee had sought to augment Amtrak's grant with
loan guaranties. Working with the railroad and the Federal
Railroad Administration, the Committee believed that it made
sense to provide Amtrak with an opportunity to secure low-
interest federally guaranteed loans to purchase new
locomotives, or other assets, that clearly would help produce
more revenues. Paying back a loan on time is what most
companies do to demonstrate their credit worthiness. Repayment
of such loans by Amtrak would have further demonstrated the
success of restructuring reforms.
The administration's budget called for Amtrak to be
included in the Federal portion of the proposed Unified
Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program [UTIIP] with
the States portion--the unified grant--to grow over time. This
plan envisioned the State role regarding Amtrak funding to
increase. Presumably, States would have had access to SIB's to
assist Amtrak. This makes the administration's position on
federally guaranteed loans for Amtrak even more difficult to
accept. No legislation with respect to UTIIP has passed either
the Senate or the House.
Flexible funding for Amtrak.--The Committee also points out
that under the Senate-passed National Highway System
Designation Act, Senate bill 440, States would have the
authority to allocate flexible Federal transportation funds for
intercity rail passenger service. Billions of dollars per year
from the congestion mitigation and air quality program and the
surface transportation program would be newly accessible for
Amtrak projects, if State officials so choose. This flexible
and intermodal approach to transportation funding, if enacted
by Congress, would provide a welcome assist to Amtrak's
financial program.
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
Summary of Fiscal Year 1996 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 mass transportation
services needed for economical and desirable urban development;
to provide mobility for transit dependents; to maximize
productivity of urban transportation systems; and to provide
assistance to State and local governments and their
instrumentalities in financing such services and systems.
Funding for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
Authority is authorized under Public Law 101-551. The Stark-
Harris authorizations have all been expended.
In fiscal year 1996, the administration proposed to fund
all but the violent crime reduction programs through a proposed
Unified Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program
[UTIIP]. Neither the House nor Senate authorizing committees
has moved the necessary legislation for this proposed
consolidation.
Under the Committee recommendation, a total program level
of $4,093,850,000 would be provided for the programs of the
Federal Transit Administration for fiscal year 1996. This is
$851,371,000 less than the budget request and $101,340,000
above the House allocation.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations compared to fiscal year 1995, the
administration's request, and the House allowance:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
Program 1995 enacted 1996 budget Houseallowance Committee
\1\ estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses........................... 42,595 \2\ (44,202) 39,260 42,000
Formula grants \3\................................ 2,499,911 2,865,050 2,000,000 2,105,850
Discretionary grants \3\.......................... 1,724,904 1,724,944 1,665,000 1,665,000
Transit planning and research..................... 92,079 \2\ (100,027) 82,250 90,000
University transportation centers................. 6,000 \2\ (6,000) 6,000 6,000
Interstate transfer grants--transit............... 48,030 .............. .............. ..............
Washington Metro.................................. 200,000 \2\ (200,000) 200,000 170,000
Violent crime reduction programs.................. ............ 5,000 .............. ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... 4,613,519 4,945,223 3,992,510 4,078,850
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes reductions pursuant to sections 323, 330, and 331 of Public Law 103-331 and amounts transferred to
OST, salaries and expenses for civil rights activities.
\2\ Funding included under UTIIP.
\3\ Includes obligation limitation on contract authority in 1995 and 1996.
Administrative Expenses
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $42,594,700
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 44,202,000
House allowance......................................... 39,260,000
Committee recommendation................................ 42,000,000
The administration proposes to fund transit administrative
expenses through the Unified Transportation Infrastructure
Investment Program. The Committee recommends a total of
$42,000,000 in general funds for administrative expenses. The
amount provided is $2,740,000 more than the House allowance and
$2,202,000 less than the administration's request.
Formula Grants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Trust Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations,
1995............. $1,349,911,000 $1,150,000,000 $2,499,911,000
Budget estimate,
1996............. 1,744,200,000 1,120,850,000 2,865,050,000
House allowance... 890,000,000 1,100,000,000 2,000,000,000
Committee
recommendation... 985,000,000 1,120,850,000 2,105,850,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Formula Grant Program has funded sections 5307,
5310(a)2, 5311, and 5336, providing grants on the basis of a
formula to State and local agencies for mass transportation
operating and capital expenses.
The Committee recommends $2,105,850,000 for continuation of
the Formula Grant Program including $111,328,000 for the
section 18 Nonurban Formula Program; $52,379,000 for the
section 16(b) Elderly and Disabled Program, and $1,532,432,643
for the section 9, Capital Grants Program.
Urbanized areas with populations of 200,000 or more.--These
areas would receive $1,448,408,297 (not including the one-half
percent set-aside). The amount for each area is derived based
on the bus and rail operating statistics and population factors
for each area. The bus tier, which contains about 67 percent of
the total funds allocates most of these funds 50 percent based
on revenue vehicle miles, 25 percent based on population, and
25 percent based on population density. In the rail tier, the
remaining 33 percent, most of the funds are allocated 60
percent based on revenue vehicle miles and 40 percent based on
route miles. Within the bus and rail tiers there is also an
incentive portion, or tier, which is based on passenger miles
and operating costs.
Urbanized areas under 200,000 population.--These areas
would receive $84,024,346 (not including the one-half percent
set-aside) to be distributed 50 percent based on population and
50 percent based on population density.
Nonurbanized areas.--These areas would receive
$111,328,000. These funds are distributed based on nonurbanized
area population not including the one-half percent setaside.
Elderly and disabled.--The section 16(b)(2) program would
receive $52,379,000.
Operating assistance.--The Committee has included bill
language limiting operating subsidies to $400,000,000. This is
the same as the House allowance and $100,000,000 less than the
administration's request.
Distribution of operating assistance among urbanized areas
[UZA's].--The Committee has included language in the bill to
hold cuts in operating assistance for those urbanized areas
[UZA's] under 200,000 in population to 20 percent below fiscal
year 1995 levels, in recognition of the fact that transit
operators in such areas generally depend on Federal operating
assistance to meet a greater percentage of their operating
budgets than operators in larger UZA's. The Committee
recognizes, however, that transit operators in larger UZA's
also rely on Federal operating assistance to meet a significant
amount of annual operating expenses. It notes that all transit
operators are struggling with increased operating costs
associated with meeting Federal requirements under the Clean
Air Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Federal drug
and alcohol testing mandates. It also is aware that Federal
operating aid was reduced by 12 percent in fiscal year 1995 and
that further reductions may result in some combination of fare
increase, service cuts, or increase support at the State and
local government levels.
In order to offset the additional loss of operating aid for
larger UZA's that will result from the provision described
above, the Committee has also included language based on, but
not identical to, proposals made by the American Public Transit
Association [APTA], which would trade in operating authority
for additional capital funding. The Committee's proposal would,
in essence, provide a benefit similar that recommended by APTA
for those transit operators in UZA's of more than 200,000 who
are giving up operating assistance for the benefit of transit
operators in smaller UZA's.
Paratransit requirements under the Americans with
Disabilities Act [ADA].--The Americans with Disabilities Act
[ADA] requires, that transit operators offer paratransit
service, as well as accessible fixed route service, to persons
with disabilities. The requirement to provide paratransit
services to those passengers unable to use fixed-route transit
service becomes effective January 26, 1996.
The Committee notes that many of the individuals who are
eligible for ADA required paratransit service have in the past
used Department of Health and Human Services [HHS]
transportation services. Many of these individuals have, for
one reason or another, seen a reduction in such HHS
transportation service and now have to rely on financially
strained transit operators for such service. The HHS agencies
that provided transportation services already have expertise in
providing paratransit service and it is estimated that in
excess of $1,000,000,000 annually is being spent on HHS
transportation services.
The Committee believes that, in order to most effectively
implement the paratransit requirements of the ADA, the
Department of Transportation should closely coordinate its
efforts with those of the Department of Health and Human
Services, and efforts should be made to determine if it might
be more appropriate for HHS funded agencies to provide such
paratransit services, and in cases where paratransit service
formerly provided by HHS agencies is being provided by transit
operators, whether HHS transportation funding might be used to
help support the cost of such paratransit service. The
Committee directs the Secretary of Transportation, working with
the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to prepare a
report, detailing a strategic plan involving DOT coordination
with HHS to provide paratransit services to individuals with
disabilities who are unable to use fixed-route transit service.
This report shall be provided to the Senate and House
Appropriations Committees by December 1, 1995.
University Transportation Centers
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $6,000,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 6,000,000
House allowance......................................... 6,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 6,000,000
Section 5317(b) of title 49 U.S.C. provides for the
university transportation centers program. The purpose of the
university transportation centers 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.
Transit Planning and Research
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $92,079,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 100,027,000
House allowance......................................... 82,250,000
Committee recommendation................................ 90,000,000
The Committee has recommended $90,000,000 for transit
planning and research. This is $7,750,000 more than the House
allocation and $10,027,000 less than the administration's
request. The Committee, unlike the House, has not altered the
statutory distribution of this account into its subparts. Funds
for this program can draw up to 3 percent of the total FTA
funding level excluding WMATA. The separate programs combined
are: the research, training, and human resources program
(sections 6, 10, 11, and 20), the planning program (section 8),
and the rural transit assistance program (section 18(h)). Under
the national component of the program, the Federal Transit
Administration is a catalyst in the research, development, and
deployment of transportation methods and technologies
addressing such issues as accessibility for the disabled, air
quality, and traffic congestion. Funds for the State and local
component of the program will ensure that all localities have
sufficient funds to improve the State and local planning
process and to participate in research efforts with regional
applications.
Transit planning and research funds are allocated by
formula as authorized in 49 U.S.C. section 5314. The House
reduced funding for all research accounts 5 percent below the
administration's request, except for the national program,
which is reduced by 17.6 percent. The Committee does not agree
with this allocation, and has distributed funds among the
transit planning and research accounts as specified in the
program's authorization.
The following table summarizes the Committee
recommendation:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
1995 program 1996 budget Houseallowance Committee
level estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan planning............................... $41,512,000 $41,512,000 $39,436,250 $40,500,000
Rural transit assistance program.................... 4,613,000 4,613,000 4,381,250 4,500,000
State planning and research program................. 8,475,000 8,475,000 8,051,250 8,250,000
Transit cooperative research program................ 8,475,000 8,475,000 8,051,250 8,250,000
National Transit Institute.......................... 3,000,000 3,000,000 2,850,000 3,000,000
National planning and research program.............. 34,004,000 33,952,000 19,480,000 25,500,000
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total......................................... 100,079,000 100,027,000 82,250,000 90,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National program.--The Committee does concur with the House
report language deleting funding for a number of low-priority,
nonessential programs, including the transit ambassadors
program, step-by-step diversity training for FTA grantees,
outreach activities, grants to universities and colleges to
create transportation courses, the environmental justice
program, transit educational materials for children, the Coming
and Going Education Program, and livable communities
initiatives. Within the national program, the following funds
are provided for important, ongoing initiatives:
Project ACTION (accessible community transportation in our
Nation)...................................................$2,000,000
Advanced technology transit bus............................... 8,000,000
Fuel cell bus technology...................................... 6,000,000
Research on large circuit breakers and switch gears........... 3,250,000
Intermodal positioning system (inertial navigation technology) 1,000,000
ALABC......................................................... 1,000,000
Large circuit breakers and switchgear.--The Committee
concurs with the recommendation of the House and directs the
FTA to continue to provide funding for research and development
of large circuit breakers and switchgear. The Committee,
however, has provided $3,250,000 for this purpose. The
Committee, therefore, directs that funding continue to be made
available to a team consisting of SEPTA and a domestic
manufacturer of large military circuit breakers and switchgear.
Advanced Transportation Systems Program.--The Committee
directs the FTA to continue the Advanced Transportation Systems
and Electric Vehicle Technology Program established under
section 6071 of title VI of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA]. The Committee is aware
of the contributions to lead acid battery research and advanced
alternative fuel transit development that participating
advanced transportation technology consortia have made to the
Advanced Transportation Systems Program.
Within this program, the Committee directs the FTA to
allocate $1,000,000 of the funds made available for the
Advanced Transportation Systems and Electric Vehicle Technology
Program to the Advanced Lead-Acid Battery Consortium [ALABC].
This is the second and final phase of funding for the
consortium and will enable the ALABC to place prototype,
advanced valve-regulated lead-acid batteries in electric bus
facilities for inservice testing and demonstration.
Fuel Cell Transit Bus Program.--The Committee directs the
FTA to provide $6,000,000 to continue the Fuel Cell Transit Bus
Program and allow completion of the phase III test program.
Funds should also be provided for continuation of the
commercialization process for the 40-foot fuel cell bus. The
Committee urges the FTA to work cooperatively with all parties
involved in this project, to ensure an appropriate and
consistent level of funding for commercialization of the 40-
foot bus.
Inertial navigation technology for transit vehicles.--The
Committee provides $1,000,000 to continue the research
authorized to be conducted by the traffic safety research
alliance on the deployment of an inertial navigation system in
urban and rural areas.
Project ACTION.--The Committee provides $2,000,000 to
continue Project ACTION (accessible community transportation in
our Nation), which is administered by the National Easter Seal
Society through a cooperative agreement with the FTA.
Monobeam system.--Recognizing the potential for U.S.
industry development, the Committee urges the Department to
support development of a full-scale prototype of a monobeam
transit system within available funds. Full-scale demonstration
with substantial private-sector participation will
significantly advance this environmentally sensitive, low-
capital cost technology toward production.
House directives.--The Committee does not concur with the
House Committee directives regarding earmarks for Team Transit
Program of the Minnesota Metropolitan Commission; Dulles
corridor studies; or the Hennepin County MN, community works
program.
Trust Fund Share of Transit Programs
(Liquidation of Contract Authorization)
(highway trust fund)
Appropriations, 1995....................................($1,150,000,000)
Budget estimate, 1996................................... (1,120,850,000)
House allowance......................................... (1,120,850,000)
Committee recommendation................................ (1,120,850,000)
Under ISTEA, Public Law 102-240, four transit accounts can
be funded from the mass transit account of the highway trust
fund, the general fund, or a mix of the two. In 1996, as in
1995, the Federal Transit Administration and the Committee
propose funding only formula grants with both trust and general
funds. Administrative expenses, university transportation
centers, and planning and research will be funded only with
general funding in order to simplify a complex accounting
procedure.
Discretionary Grants
(Limitation on Obligations)
(Highway Trust Fund)
Appropriations, 1995....................................($1,724,904,000)
Budget estimate, 1996................................... (1,724,944,000)
House allowance......................................... (1,665,000,000)
Committee recommendation................................ (1,665,000,000)
Section 5338(b) 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. Under the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991, Public Law 102-240, investments may
include construction of new fixed guideway systems; extensions
to existing guideway systems; major bus fleet expansions; and
rail modernization expenditures for existing older rail
systems. Planning is funded, along with research, within the
new transit planning and research appropriation.
The Committee recommends a level of $1,665,000,000. This is
the same as that recommended by the House and $59,944,000 less
than the administration's request. It is the full amount
authorized from the trust fund by Public Law 102-240.
The following table summarizes the Committee
recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
1995 program 1996 budget Houseallowance Committee
level estimate recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bus and bus facilities............................. 353,310 274,992 333,000 333,000
Existing rail modernization........................ 724,960 724,976 666,000 666,000
New systems and new extensions..................... 646,634 724,976 666,000 666,000
------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................ 1,724,904 \1\ 1,724,94
4 1,665,000 1,665,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $59,944,000 in general funds.
Three-year availability of section 3 discretionary funds.--
The Committee has redistributed unallocated discretionary bus
and new starts funds from projects which were funded in the
fiscal year 1993 transportation appropriations bill (Public Law
102-388), making these funds available for reallocation in
fiscal year 1996. In section 374 of Public Law 102-388, funding
availability for these discretionary funds is limited to 3
years from enactment. A total of $22,840,000 has been
reprogrammed to the new systems account, increasing the
available funding from $666,000,000 to $688,840,000.
Interstate compact infrastructure banks.--Provisions in
this bill create a program of State infrastructure banks which
will greatly enhance capital financing options for transit
projects across the Nation. These innovative financing tools,
including loans, will be available to transit new starts as
well as other transit capital projects.
bus and bus facilities
In allocating funds under discretionary grants for buses
and bus facilities, the Committee has deleted funding for many
meritorious projects which were included in the House version
of the bill. The Committee has deleted funding for these
projects without prejudice. Budget constraints have required
the Committee to use limited funds to identify projects that
have not already been recognized in the House version of the
bill. However, the Committee expects to give full consideration
to all projects in the House and Senate bills during conference
committee deliberations on the Fiscal Year 1995 Transportation
Appropriations Act.
The recommended amount includes the following allocations:
BUSES AND BUS FACILITIES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
State/city/county Description recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas:
Little Rock.................................. Central Arkansas transit transfer facility... $1,000,000
Fayetteville (University of Arkansas)........ Intermodal transfer facility................. 5,400,000
California:
Long Beach................................... Bus replacement and parts.................... 3,000,000
Los Angeles.................................. Gateway Intermodal Transit Center............ 15,000,000
San Diego.................................... San Ysidro Intermodal Center................. 10,000,000
San Francisco................................ BART ADA compliance/paratransit.............. 4,460,000
San Joaquin.................................. RTD bus replacement.......................... 10,560,000
Florida: Miami (Metro-Dade)...................... Buses for Metro-Dade Transit................. 16,000,000
Hawaii: Honolulu, Oahu........................... Kuakini Medical Center parking facility...... 8,000,000
Illinois: Chicago................................ Replacement buses/communication system....... 13,700,000
Iowa:
Cedar Rapids................................. Hybrid electric bus consortium............... 2,960,000
State of Iowa................................ Buses, equipment, and facilities............. 8,000,000
Waterloo..................................... Intermodal bus facility...................... 1,340,000
Ottumwa...................................... Global positioning system equipment.......... 700,000
Maryland: State of Maryland...................... MTA replacement buses........................ 16,000,000
Michigan:
Lansing...................................... Intermodal Transportation Center............. 4,180,000
State of Michigan............................ ISTEA set-aside requirement.................. 10,000,000
Missouri:
Kansas City.................................. Union Station intermodal..................... 13,000,000
St. Louis.................................... MetroLink bus purchase....................... 10,000,000
State of Missouri............................ Buses and bus facilities..................... 11,000,000
Nevada: Clark County............................. Buses and bus facility....................... 20,000,000
New Jersey:
Garden State Parkway......................... Park-n-ride at Interchange 165............... 2,300,000
Hamilton Township............................ Intermodal facility/bus maintenance.......... 25,000,000
New York:
Albany....................................... Buses........................................ 10,000,000
Long Island.................................. Buses........................................ 3,000,000
New York City................................ Natural gas buses/fueling station............ 10,000,000
Rensselaer................................... Intermodal station........................... 7,500,000
Rochester-Genessee........................... Buses........................................ 1,400,000
Utica (and rural counties)................... Buses........................................ 6,000,000
Ohio: Columbus................................... Bus transfer center.......................... 10,000,000
Oregon:
Wilsonville.................................. Transit vehicles............................. 500,000
Eugene lane transit district [LTD]........... Radio system................................. 1,300,000
Pennsylvania:
Beaver County................................ Bus facility................................. 3,300,000
Erie......................................... Intermodal complex........................... 8,000,000
Philadelphia................................. Chestnut Street/alternative fuel vehicles.... 2,000,000
Pittsburgh................................... Busway system................................ 10,000,000
Texas:
Corpus Christi............................... ADART dispatching system..................... 1,600,000
Robstown/Corpus Christi...................... Bus shelters/curb cuts/transit center........ 800,000
Vermont:
State of Vermont............................. Buses and bus facilities..................... 6,000,000
Marble Valley................................ Bus upgrades................................. 2,000,000
Virginia: Richmond............................... Downtown multimodal station.................. 10,000,000
Washington:
Everett...................................... Everett multimodal center.................... 7,000,000
Seattle...................................... Seattle Metro/King County multimodal......... 4,000,000
Seattle/King County.......................... Seattle Metro bus purchase................... 10,000,000
Tacoma....................................... Tacoma dome arena multimodal................. 5,000,000
Wenatchee.................................... Chelan-Douglas multimodal.................... 2,000,000
---------------
Total...................................... ............................................. 333,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill includes $333,000,000 under this heading for the
purchase of buses, bus related equipment and paratransit
vehicles and for the construction of bus-related facilities.
These funds will assist in the replacement of many over-age
buses in cities of all sizes, permit the expansion of bus
service to accommodate community transit needs, help finance
appropriate bus maintenance facility modernization or
construction, assist in bus rehabilitation, and assist in the
purchase of support equipment. In addition, these funds will be
to defray costs to grantees associated with implementing
requirements associated with the Americans With Disabilities
Act and the Clean Air Act.
fixed guideway modernization
The Committee recommends a total of $666,000,000 for the
modernization of existing rail transit systems. Under ISTEA all
of the funds are distributed by formula. The following table
itemizes by city the fiscal year 1996 rail modernization
allocations:
Fiscal year 1996
Areas apportionment
New York................................................ $228,317,868
Southwestern Connecticut................................ 30,238,186
Northeastern New Jersey................................. 59,852,995
Chicago/Northwestern Indiana............................ 94,083,037
Philadelphia/Southern New Jersey........................ 68,353,400
Boston.................................................. 46,966,395
San Francisco........................................... 43,346,200
Pittsburgh.............................................. 14,619,242
Cleveland............................................... 10,234,467
Baltimore............................................... 11,252,003
New Orleans............................................. 1,977,169
Los Angeles............................................. 5,163,433
Washington, DC.......................................... 14,498,674
Seattle................................................. 4,716,616
Atlanta................................................. 5,363,201
San Diego............................................... 1,865,716
San Jose................................................ 3,367,284
Providence.............................................. 886,831
Dayton.................................................. 1,415,918
Tacoma.................................................. 170,335
Wilmington.............................................. 278,710
Trenton................................................. 493,550
Lawrence-Haverhill...................................... 432,833
Chattanooga............................................. 17,404
Baltimore............................................... 2,077,988
Minneapolis............................................. 970,638
St. Louis............................................... 134,739
Denver.................................................. 323,695
Norfolk................................................. 341,533
Kansas City............................................. 18,106
Honolulu................................................ 221,697
Hartford................................................ 376,909
Madison................................................. 176,241
San Juan................................................ 891,176
Detroit................................................. 165,760
Dallas.................................................. 266,485
Sacramento.............................................. 841,768
Houston................................................. 1,413,969
Buffalo................................................. 378,659
Portland................................................ 743,813
Miami................................................... 2,752,667
Phoenix................................................. 997,690
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 661,005,000
Three-fourths of 1 percent takedown..................... 4,995,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total appropriation............................... 666,000,000
NEW SYSTEMS
The bill includes $666,000,000, the fully authorized level,
and $22,840,000 of reprogrammed funds, for a total of
$688,840,000. These funds are available for preliminary
engineering, right-of-way acquisition, project management,
oversight, and construction for new systems and extensions.
According to specific project needs, these funds shall also be
available for preliminary stages of projects named for funding.
The funds are to be distributed as follows:
Atlanta-MARTA North Springs extension................... $42,410,000
Boston-South Boston Piers Transitway, MOS-2............. 22,620,000
Burlington-Charlotte, Vermont commuter rail............. 11,300,000
Chicago central area circulator......................... 5,000,000
Dallas-DART:
South Oak Cliff LRT................................. 16,941,000
North central extension............................. 3,500,000
Dallas-Fort Worth RAILTRAN.............................. 7,000,000
Florida Tri-County commuter rail........................ 10,000,000
Houston-METRO regional bus plan......................... 22,630,000
Los Angeles Metro Rail MOS-3............................ 45,000,000
Maryland commuter rail [MARC]........................... 15,000,000
Maryland--Baltimore central corridor LRT................ 22,630,000
Miami Metrorail North 27th Avenue extension............. 2,000,000
New Jersey urban core................................... 85,500,000
New York Queens connector............................... 160,000,000
Pittsburgh Airport busway projects...................... 22,630,000
Portland Westside LRT................................... 130,140,000
Salt Lake City light rail project....................... 14,519,000
San Francisco BART Airport/Tasman extensions............ 22,620,000
St. Louis Metrolink..................................... 13,000,000
Wisconsin Central commuter [Metra]...................... 14,400,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
Atlanta-MARTA North Line extension.--The Committee
recommends $42,410,000 for the Atlanta-MARTA North Line
extension project. This 9-mile, five-station extension will
allow Atlanta's heavy rail rapid transit system to serve the
rapidly growing area north of Atlanta, and will connect this
area with the rest of the region by providing better transit
service for both commuters and inner-city residents. The
extension to Dunwoody is presently under construction; the
extension to North Springs is in final design. The local share
commitment for the federally funded portion of this extension
is 21 percent. The cost-effectiveness index is $5 per new
passenger trip. FTA has determined that the grantee has the
financial capacity to build and operate this project. An FFGA
for the Dunwoody to North Springs segment was issued in
December 1994 which fulfilled the requirements of section
3035(tt) of ISTEA. All of the $29,460,000 in funds provided to
this segment since the enactment of ISTEA have been obligated,
as has the $10,000,000 provided in pre-ISTEA funds. No funds
were appropriated for this project in the fiscal year 1994 or
fiscal year 1995 appropriations. The FFGA funding schedule
provides for $42,410,000 in fiscal year 1996 new starts funds,
with the remaining $223,140,000 provided over fiscal year 1997-
2000. To date, $132,000,000 has been obligated to the project
with no prior-year appropriations remaining unobligated. The
3.1-mile federally funded segment of the North Line extension
(Medical Center to North Springs) received an ISTEA earmark of
$329,000,000.
Boston-South Boston Piers Transitway MOS-2.--The Committee
recommends $22,620,000 for the South Boston Piers Transitway
project. This project consists of a 1-mile bus tunnel
connecting South Station to the World Trade Center and Fan
Pier. The tunnel will be used by electric trolleybuses, its
construction is timed to link the central artery/tunnel highway
project now underway. The project is in the final design stage.
The local share commitment to this project is 20 percent. The
cost-effectiveness index ranges from $9 to $16 per new
passenger trip. FTA has determined that the grantee has the
financial capacity to build and operate this project. An FFGA
was issued in November 1994 in the amount of $330,730,000; this
includes the $92,460,000 provided in fiscal year 1995 and prior
years. The FFGA funding schedule provides for $22,620,000 in
fiscal year 1996. The remaining $215,650,000 would be provided
over the course of fiscal years 1997-2000. To date, $92,500,000
has been obligated to the project with no prior-year
appropriations remaining unobligated. This project received an
ISTEA earmark of $278,000,000.
Burlington-Charlotte, VT, commuter rail.--The Committee
recommends $11,300,000 to complete the Federal share of capital
improvements for the Burlington-Charlotte commuter rail
project. These funds will be used for the purchase of rail cars
and improvements to existing tracks currently used by Amtrak
and Vermont Railway to provide commuter rail service between
the cities of Burlington and Charlotte. The State of Vermont is
willing to utilize flex funding [STP] for this project, with an
initial grant of $750,000 projected for approval in the first
quarter of fiscal year 1996, after all issues, including
environmental questions, have been addressed. The balance of
funding (also from flex funds) would be provided in outyears.
The State of Vermont has also committed to financing all
required operating costs associated with this commuter rail
project. The Vermont Agency on Transportation estimates the
cost of the commuter rail alternative to be $7,700,000. The
project is in the planning stage with a major investment study
[MIS] nearing completion. A public hearing on the preferred
alternative will be held after the study is completed. The MIS
identifies a preliminary cost-effectiveness index of $7 per new
passenger trip. Discretionary funds have not yet been
authorized or appropriated for this corridor.
Canton-Akron-Cleveland commuter rail.--The Committee
recommends no funding for the northeast Ohio corridor project.
The House provided $6,500,000 for this project. The Northeast
Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency [NOACA] has initiated work on
a feasibility study to select potential commuter rail corridors
for serving urban and suburban areas in northeastern Ohio. This
phase is scheduled to be completed in mid-1996. A follow-on
phase will assess economic ad environmental implications of a
commuter rail system as well as analyze other transportation
modes available to meet anticipated travel demand. This project
was earmarked in ISTEA for $1,600,000,000. Through fiscal year
1995, $1,790,000,000 has been appropriated to this project and
$990,000 has been obligated.
Chicago central area circulator.--The Committee recommends
$5,000,000 for the Chicago central area circulator project. The
House provided no funding for this project. This project had
completed the preliminary engineering stage, and was poised to
seek $42,410,000 for final design (the amount requested by the
administration for fiscal year 1996). The project was to be
funded in shares of one-third by its Federal, State, and local
participants. The Illinois Legislature has now deleted its
cost-share of the circulator, and the project sponsors are in
process of reducing the project's scope and increasing the
Federal share (not to exceed 50 percent). Delays can be
expected as the project plan is reconsidered, its financing
commitments redone, and the new phased-in project enters the
required environmental review stage. The project's full funding
grant agreement [FFGA] provides a total of $258,370,000
including $116,230,000 provided through fiscal year 1995. This
FFGA must be renegotiated with the Federal Transit
Administration to reflect the phased-in project when the
details of the rescoped project are settled. The Committee has
provided a small amount of funding to enable this project to
move forward in fiscal year 1996.
Cincinnati Northeast/northern Kentucky rail.--The Committee
recommends no funding for the Cincinnati Northeast/northern
Kentucky corridor. The House provided $2,000,000 for this
project. The administration did not request any funding. This
corridor extends from the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky
International Airport through downtown Cincinnati to
Paramount's Kings Island Amusement Park in Warren County, OH.
This 33-mile corridor paralleling I-71 generally runs in a
northeasterly direction, and so is referred to as the Northeast
corridor. The Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of
Governments [OKI] is conducting a planning study of
transportation alternatives in this corridor. The study is
expected to be completed in 1997. Pending completion of the
study, there is no information on the nature of the project,
its costs and benefits, and the local share commitment to the
project; therefore, additional funding is not yet required.
Through fiscal year 1995, Congress has appropriated $2,530,000.
To date, $2,530,000 has been obligated with no prior-year
appropriations remaining unobligated. This project is not
authorized in ISTEA.
Dallas-DART South Oak Cliff Line.--The Committee recommends
$16,941,000 for the Dallas-DART South Oak Cliff Line. This
amount is the same as that provided by the House and will
complete this project. This line is part of a 20-mile,
$835,000,000 light rail starter system which is being
constructed by Dallas Area Rapid Transit [DART]. The 9.6-mile,
13 station South Oak Cliff Line extends from downtown Dallas to
Ledbetter Drive in the South Oak Cliff area of Dallas. The
project is under construction. The local share commitment to
this project is 43 percent. The cost-effectiveness index is $9
per new passenger trip. FTA has determined that the grantee has
the financial capacity to build and operate this project. An
FFGA in the amount of $160,000,000 has been issued for this
project, fulfilling the requirements of section 3035(i) of
ISTEA. Through fiscal year 1995, Congress has appropriated a
total of $143,100,000. To date, $143,100,000 has been obligated
to the project with no prior-year appropriations remaining
unobligated. The FFGA funding schedule calls for $16,940,000 in
new starts funding in fiscal year 1996.
Dallas-DART north central light rail extension.--The
Committee recommends $3,500,000 for the Dallas-DART north
central light rail extension project. The House provided
$2,500,000 for this project. This project is a 12.3-mile, six-
station, $268,000,000 LRT extension to Plano. The northern
portion of the line would be single track initially and an
additional special events station would be provided in Plano.
DART has completed a major investment study [MIS] and the
preferred alternative was selected in September 1994. The
project has been approved for preliminary engineering. The
local share commitment to this project is 50 percent. The cost-
effectiveness index is $11 per new passenger trip. FTA has
assigned a financial rating of low/medium to this project.
Through fiscal year 1995, Congress has appropriated $2,500,000
for this project. To date, no funds have been obligated with
the $2,500,000 appropriation remaining unobligated. The project
is not authorized in ISTEA.
Dallas-Fort Worth RAILTRAN.--The Committee recommends
$7,000,000 for the Dallas-Fort Worth RAILTRAN project. The
House provided $5,000,000 for this project. This project,
scheduled to open in 1998, consists of commuter rail service
over 25 miles of track from South Irving to Fort Worth. The
project includes service to the Fort Worth Intermodal
Transportation Center. The project is in the preliminary
engineering stage. The cost-effectiveness index is $8 per new
passenger trip. FTA has assigned a financial rating of medium/
low to the project. The capital costs of phases one and two are
$68,200,000 and $101,000,000 respectively. Phase one of the
project is fully funded with local (60 percent), section 5307
(25 percent) and CMAQ funds (15 percent), and no section 5309
funds. The capital funding plan for phase two assumes funding
from section 5309 (44 percent), CMAQ funds (20 percent),
highway demonstration funds (13 percent), and local funds (23
percent). Through fiscal year 1995, Congress has appropriated
$5,460,000 for this project. To date, $2,480,000 has been
obligated with $2,980,000 of prior-year appropriations
remaining unobligated. The project received an ISTEA earmark of
$5,680,000.
Dulles corridor rail project.--The Committee recommends no
funding for the Dulles corridor study. The House also did not
provide funding for the project. A major investment study [MIS]
is expected to be completed in 1996 that will generate
information on the mobility improvements, cost effectiveness,
environmental benefits, and operating efficiencies associated
with rail and bus alternatives. The corridor links west Falls
Church, VA, and Washington Dulles International Airport. The
estimated cost of the rail alternatives are $1,000,000,000 or
more. Pending completion of the study, there is no information
on the cost-effectiveness index and local financial plan.
Section 3035(aaa) of ISTEA directs FTA to negotiate and sign a
multiyear grant agreement in the amount of $6,000,000 with the
Commonwealth of Virginia for the completion of the MIS and
preliminary engineering. No money has been appropriated to
date.
Florida (Miami) Tri-County commuter rail.--The Committee
recommends $10,000,000 for the Tri-County commuter rail
project, the same as the House allowance. The Tri-County
Commuter Rail Authority (Tri-Rail) operates a 67-mile commuter
rail system connecting Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties.
Tri-Rail's short-range program includes the addition of a
second track and rehabilitation of the signal system. These
improvements will reduce conflicts with Amtrak and CSX freight
trains. The project is in the final design stage. Through
fiscal year 1995, Congress appropriated $24,500,000 in section
5309 new starts funds for Tri-Rail improvements. To date,
$24,500,000 has been obligated to the project, with no prior-
year appropriations remaining unobligated. Information
concerning the total cost of the program, local share
commitment, cost-effectiveness index, and financial plan is not
available. The project was not authorized in ISTEA.
Houston-METRO regional bus plan.--The Committee recommends
$22,630,000 for the Houston-METRO regional bus plan. This
$625,000,000 plan, developed by Houston METRO, consists of a
package of major improvements to its existing bus system. It
includes major service expansions in most of the region, new
and extended HOV (high-occupancy vehicle) facilities and ramps,
several transit centers and park-and-ride lots, and supporting
facilities. The individual elements of the plan are in various
stages of development, from preliminary engineering to
construction. The local share commitment to this project is 20
percent. The cost-effectiveness index is $3 per new passenger
trip. FTA has determined that the grantee has the financial
capacity to build and operate this project. An FFGA was issued
for this project on December 30, 1994, which fulfilled the
requirements of section 3035(uu) of ISTEA. A total of
$29,780,000 was provided to this project in the fiscal year
1995 budget. An additional $88,200,000 in ISTEA funds was
earmarked in fiscal year 1994 and prior years, and $146,070,000
was provided in pre-ISTEA budgets; all of these funds have been
obligated. The FFGA funding schedule for this project provides
for $22,630,000 in fiscal year 1996 new starts funds, with the
remaining $212,730,000 needed to complete the project provided
in fiscal years 1997-2000. To date, $264,660,000 has been
obligated to the project with no prior-year appropriations
remaining unobligated. The project received an ISTEA earmark of
$500,000,000.
Jacksonville automated skyway express.--The Committee
recommends no funding for the Jacksonville, FL, automated
skyway express [ASE]. This 0.7-mile extension south of downtown
Jacksonville consists of an elevated, double track guideway
running from the San Marcos Station, now under construction,
through the South Bank business district to St. John's place.
This final segment will enlarge the ASE system to 2.5 miles.
The project is in the final design stage. The local share
commitment to the project is 20 percent. FTA has assigned a
financial rating of medium to this project. Information
concerning the cost-effectiveness index is not available. The
Jacksonville project received an ISTEA earmark of $71,200,000.
An FFGA in the amount of $44,000,000 was issued in fiscal year
1991 and amended in fiscal year 1994. To date, $49,640,000 has
been appropriated and obligated, completing the FFGA. The 9.7-
mile south extension is not covered under the FFGA and
estimated to cost $32,000,000.
In 1989, the skyway opened a 0.7-mile starter line that now
averages 1,600 riders per day. The FTA's report pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 5309(m)(3) states that Jacksonville does not have an
ongoing dedicated funding source to support its transit capital
program and rates as low its capital financing commitment.
Project sponsors estimate that by the year 2005, daily
ridership will increase to 38,000 riders.
The Committee has not provided any additional funds for
this project, while the House has earmarked $12,500,000
conditioned on the State's planned $25,000,000 contribution to
the Fuller Warren Bridge project. Project sponsors have argued
that since the State of Florida has agreed to provide funding
for this bridge as well as for the I-4 Interchange, that this
effort should justify providing $25,000,000 in Federal transit
funds to complete the final 0.35 miles of the skyway.
Evidently, the Jacksonville Transportation Authority is not
permitted to spend transit funds derived from sales taxes on
the skyway project. Regardless of this local problem, the
Committee's decision on transit funding rests on the merits of
individual transit projects under consideration. Given the
overwhelming demands on this account, the Committee cannot
provide funding this year.
Kansas City, MO, light rail.--The Committee recommends no
funding for the Kansas City light rail project. The House also
did not provide any funds for the project. The Kansas City Area
Transportation Authority [KCATA] has completed a major
investment study [MIS] in the Southtown corridor. The corridor
extends from the riverfront and downtown Kansas City south to
I-435. The locally preferred alternative [LPA] consists of a
15.1-mile light rail line connecting the downtown Rivermarket
area with the Country Club Plaza south of the city. From the
plaza, the light rail project splits into two branches; the
east branch serving the Watkins Drive corridor to 75th Street;
and the west branch serving the Country Club corridor to 85th
Street. The cost-effectiveness index is $16 per new passenger
trip. The local share commitment to this project is 20 percent.
Through fiscal year 1995, Congress has appropriated $1,500,000
for the project. To date, $570,000 has been obligated with
$930,000 in prior-year appropriations remaining unobligated.
This project received an ISTEA earmark of $5,900,000.
Los Angeles.--The Committee recommends $45,000,000 for the
Federal share of the Metro Rail minimum operable segment 3
[MOS-3]. The House provided $125,000,000 for the project, while
the administration requested $158,860,000. This is the third
minimum operable segment [MOS] of the Metro Rail Red Line
project in Los Angeles. The first segment, MOS-1, opened for
revenue service in January 1993. MOS-2 is currently under
construction, and the FFGA has been fulfilled. In May 1993, an
FFGA was issued to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority [LACMTA] for MOS-3. ISTEA defined MOS-
3 to include three smaller segments: the north Hollywood
segment presently under construction, and the MidCity and East
Side extensions which are undergoing final design. Total costs
for the MidCity, north Hollywood, and East Side phase 1
segments are estimated to be $1,400,000,000. The local share
commitment to this project is 54 percent. ISTEA authorized
$695,000,000, plus $535,000,000 in advanced construction
authority. In fiscal year 1995 and prior years, $356,700,000
was appropriated for MOS-3. Funding in the amount of
$158,860,000 is recommended in fiscal year 1996 under the FFGA
funding schedule, with the remaining $900,890,000 to be
provided over the course of fiscal years 1997-2002. Through
fiscal year 1995, $356,700,000 has been obligated for MOS-3
with no prior-year appropriations remaining unobligated.
Last year, the FTA suspended funding for this project as a
result of construction problems that led to portions of the
subway tunnel sinking. After final action on the fiscal year
1995 appropriation for this project, the Committee was
belatedly made aware of outstanding construction problems that
led the FTA to temporarily suspend all funding for the project.
FTA reinstated the project's funding upon receiving assurances
that LACMTA would exercise proper stewardship of Federal funds.
The Committee is very concerned that commitments made by the
LACMTA to implement safety and quality assurance program
staffing shifts from contractors to LACMTA employees have not
been met. While steps were taken to place the rail construction
program under the direct supervision of the LACMTA rather than
have it remain vested within a subsidiary entity, the Committee
is not confident that appropriate construction supervision is
in place. The project has been beset with construction problems
such as tunnel liners integrity, misalignments of tunnel, a 70-
foot by 70-foot sinkhole in Hollywood Boulevard, improper use
of wooden support wedges rather than more costly steel
supports, investigations into awards of bids and insurance
contracts, and other improper activities. These problems now
have culminated in the removal of the prime contractor;
replacement of the prime contractor will necessarily bring
about delays as work is transferred over to new parties. Thus,
the Committee believes that it is time for this project to get
its safety program in order, and back it up with strong
oversight. The Committee instructs the Federal Transit
Administration to assure that the commitments in staffing that
were to be made by February 1995 actually be made before these
or any other Federal funds are obligated to the LACMTA red line
project.
The Committee is confident that its fiscal year 1996
appropriation, coupled with State and local funding, shall be
sufficient to enable this project to continue with better
attention given to safety oversight and quality assurance.
These steps will strengthen and improve this project, and
protect the billions of Federal dollars already invested in the
Los Angeles metro.
Maryland central corridor LRT.--The Committee recommends
$22,630,000 for the central corridor LRT extensions. The House
provided $3,000,000 for this project. The Mass Transportation
Administration of Maryland has constructed, using State and
local funds, a 22.5-mile light rail transit line along existing
railroad right-of-way from Glen Burnie through Baltimore to
Timonium. The Federal project consists of a 5-mile extension of
the light rail system from Timonium to Hunt Valley, a 2-mile
branch off the main line to Baltimore-Washington International
Airport, and a 0.25-mile spur from the main line to Penn
Station. The grantee has signed a design-build contract to
complete the LRT extensions. The local share commitment to this
project is 20 percent. However, if this investment is viewed in
the context of the complete system, the overall local share
commitment is 82 percent. The cost-effectiveness index is $8
per new passenger trip. FTA has determined that the grantee has
the financial capacity to build and operate this project. The
total cost of the three extensions of the project is estimated
to be $106,000,000. Section 3035(nn) of ISTEA directs FTA to
sign a multiyear grant agreement with the MTA to provide not
less than $60,000,000 in new starts funds. An FFGA in the
amount of $84,900,000 has been signed for the three extensions.
Through fiscal year 1995, $47,300,000 has been appropriated.
The FFGA funding schedule for this project provides for
$22,630,000 in fiscal year 1996 new starts funds, with the
remaining $15,020,000 required to complete the Federal portion
of this project provided in fiscal year 1997. To date, FTA has
obligated $47,300,000 to the project with no prior-year
appropriations remaining unobligated.
Maryland commuter rail [MARC] extensions.--The Committee
recommends $15,000,000 for the MARC extensions. The House
provided $10,000,000 for this project. This system would
provide service to Washington, DC, from both Waldorf and
Frederick, MD. FTA has provided planning funds to the Tri-
County Council for Southern Maryland for a planning study to
evaluate transit alternatives in the Waldorf area, the study is
expected to be completed in late 1995. The extension of MARC
service to Frederick consists of a 13.5-mile line and will
operate on existing CSX transportation rail right-of-way. The
Frederick extension is in final design. The MARC program also
includes new equipment and station improvements. The local
share commitment to this project is 20 percent. FTA has
determined that the grantee has the financial capacity to build
and operate the Frederick project and the new equipment and
station improvements. An FFGA was issued for the projects in
June 1995 for $105,300,000, which includes $13,900,000
previously approved under the first increment of funding for
the project. Through fiscal year 1995, Congress has
appropriated $47,150,000 for this project. The FFGA funding
schedule calls for $91,300,000 in new starts funding in fiscal
years 1997-98. To date, $47,150,000 has been obligated to the
project with no prior-year appropriations remaining
unobligated. This project received an ISTEA earmark of
$160,000,000.
Memphis Medical Center rail extension/Memphis regional rail
plan.--The Committee recommends no funding for the Memphis
Medical Center study. The House provided $2,500,000 for this
project. The Memphis Area Transit Authority [MATA] currently
operates the 2.5-mile Main Street trolley, a vintage rail
trolley line in downtown Memphis. MATA is studying
alternatives, including a light rail line, connecting downtown
and the medical center--the two largest employment centers in
the Memphis area. The medical center extension is likely to be
exempt from the section 3(i) criteria since the section 3 share
would be less than $25,000,000. Information concerning project
costs and benefits, the local share commitment, cost-
effectiveness index, and financial plan is not yet available.
MATA is also looking at another extension of the Main Street
trolley via the Riverfront loop and examining an additional
corridor to gauge potential for transit-oriented solutions.
Congress appropriated $500,000 for the Memphis regional rail
plan in fiscal year 1994. These funds were obligated this
fiscal year (fiscal year 1995) and were applied to the above
study activities.
Miami Metrorail North 27th Avenue.--The Committee
recommends $2,000,000 for the Miami Metrorail North 27th Avenue
corridor study. The House provided $2,000,000 for this project.
The Metro-Dade Transit Agency [MDTA] is conducting a major
investment study of transit alternatives in a 9.5-mile corridor
centered on 27th Avenue. The corridor extends from northwest
62d Street on the south to the Dade/Broward County line on the
north. The alternatives include an expansion of the Metrorail
heavy rail system along various alignments, a busway, bus
service improvements, and a no-build option. The potential for
expanding the corridor into Broward County is also being
considered in the study. The study is expected to be completed
in September 1995. Through fiscal year 1995, Congress has
appropriated $992,500 for this corridor. To date, $992,500 has
been obligated with no prior-year appropriations remaining
unobligated. Pending completion of the study, information
concerning the nature of the project, its costs and benefits,
local share commitment, cost-effectiveness index, and financial
plan is not available. The project was not mentioned in ISTEA.
New Jersey urban core.--The Committee recommends
$85,500,000 for the New Jersey urban core project. The House
provided $75,000,000 for this project. This project consists of
a number of rail improvements designed to improve mobility in
the region. The urban core project consists of the following
segments: Secaucus transfer; Kearney connection, Hudson-Bergen
line; Newark Airport-Elizabeth transit link; Northeast corridor
signal system; a rail connection between Penn Station, Newark,
and Broad Street Station, Newark; and improvements to New York
Penn Station.
Section 3031(c) specifically exempts these projects from
the project justification requirements of section 5309(e)(2)-
(7) and from FTA's major capital investment policy. Section
3031 of ISTEA directs FTA to sign an FFGA for those elements of
the New Jersey urban core program of projects which can be
fully funded in fiscal years 1992-97. The local financial
commitment is accounted for through the ISTEA toll revenue
credit provision. ISTEA earmarked $634,400,000 for the entire
urban core program of projects. An FFGA was issued for the
Secaucus transfer project in December 1994 to provide a total
of $444,300,000 through fiscal year 1998, including funds
already provided in prior years.
The $448,000,000 Secaucus transfer station, a three-level
transfer station allowing commuters on the main line, Bergen
County line, Pascack Valley line, and Port Jervis line to
transfer to Northeast corridor commuter trains destined to Penn
Station in midtown Manhattan or Penn Station in Newark, is
currently under construction. The Secaucus FFGA funding
schedule calls for $85,540,000 in new starts funding in fiscal
year 1996 with $125,500,000 scheduled in fiscal years 1997-98.
The $530,000,000 Hudson-Bergen light rail project, a 15.3-mile,
24-station at-grade LRT line from the Vince Lombardi park-and-
ride lot through Hoboken and Jersey City to Route 440 in
southwest Jersey City, is in preliminary engineering. The cost-
effectiveness index is $5 per new passenger trip.
The $640,000,000 Newark Elizabeth light rail project, an 8-
mile, 12-station light rail transit line linking the cities of
Newark and Elizabeth and Newark International Airport, is in
preliminary engineering. The cost-effectiveness index is $11
per new passenger trip.
Through fiscal year 1995, Congress has appropriated a total
of $356,000,000 to New Jersey urban core projects. To date,
$233,180,000 has been obligated to the Secaucus transfer
project with no prior-year earmarks remaining unobligated;
$58,500,000 has been obligated to the Hudson-Bergen project
with $50,500,000 in prior-year earmarks remaining unobligated;
$1,800,000 has been obligated to the Penn Station, NY, project
with no prior-year appropriations remaining unobligated; and
$11,900,000 has been obligated to the Newark-Elizabeth project
with no prior-year appropriations remaining unobligated.
In testimony before the Committee, the Federal Transit
Administrator stated his willingness to enter into negotiations
with the New Jersey Transit regarding a contingent commitment
on the Hudson Waterfront portion of New Jersey's urban core.
The Committee encourages FTA to begin those negotiations and to
sign a contingent commitment at the earliest possible date. The
Hudson Waterfront project is authorized to receive funding as
part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1991. Once constructed the Hudson Waterfront project will carry
some 100,000 passengers per day. This transit project is of
critical importance to the economic vitality of one of the most
densely populated States in the country.
New Orleans Canal Street corridor.--The Committee
recommends no funding for the New Orleans Canal Street corridor
project. The House provided $10,000,000 for this project. The
Regional Transit Authority [RTA] has initiated a major
investment study to evaluate transit alternatives on the 4.9-
mile Canal Street corridor. The light rail alternatives would
follow the current Canal Cemeteries bus route from the
Mississippi River to City Park Avenue. An additional leg of the
route would connect Canal Street with the Union Passenger
Terminal and possibly a parking area for proposed riverboat
casinos. Alternatives analysis was initiated in September 1992.
RTA is in the process of completing the MIS/DEIS and selecting
the locally preferred alternative. Since fiscal year 1994,
Congress has appropriated $13,500,000 for this project. To
date, $2,000,000 has been obligated with $11,500,000 in prior-
year appropriations remaining unobligated. This project
received an ISTEA earmark of $4,800,000.
New York 63d Street/Queens connector.--The Committee
recommends $160,000,000 for the Queens Boulevard/63d Street
connection project. The House provided $114,989,000 for this
project. This one-third mile tunnel would relieve overcrowding
on the Queens Boulevard subway lines by diverting service to
the 63d Street Tunnel from the 53d Street Tunnel bottleneck.
The total cost of the project is estimated to be $645,000,000.
The extension is currently under construction. The local share
commitment to this project is 53 percent. The cost-
effectiveness index is $5 per hour of travel time savings. FTA
has determined that the grantee has the financial capacity to
build and operate this project. Section 3033 of ISTEA directs
FTA to sign a multiyear grant agreement with the New York City
Transit Authority in the amount of $306,100,000 for the
elements that can be fully funded in fiscal years 1992-96. A
FFGA has been issued for the Queens Boulevard project. Through
fiscal year 1995, Congress has appropriated $145,900,000 for
this project. To date, $145,900,000 has been obligated to the
project with no prior-year appropriations remaining
unobligated. The FFGA calls for $152,270,000 in new starts
funding in fiscal year 1996, with an additional $20,000,000
needed in fiscal year 1998 to complete the Federal commitment.
The Committee has added funds to the administration's requested
amount to assist this project, which is actively under
construction, in catching up on funding shortfalls from
previous years' allocations.
Orange County, CA.--The Committee recommends no funding for
the Orange County transitway project. The House provided
$5,000,000 for this project. The $337,000,000 Transitway
project consists of exclusive HOV connections between existing
HOV lanes on I-405 and SR-55, transit/access drop ramps between
the HOV lanes and adjacent activity centers, park and ride
lots, and an expanded level of express bus service. The local
share commitment to this project is 30 percent. The transitway
is currently in preliminary engineering. The cost-effectiveness
index is $4 per new passenger trip. FTA has rated the financial
plan low. FTA issued a finding of no significant impact [FONSI]
in July 1994 and a Letter of no prejudice [LONP] in September
1994 allowing OCTA to proceed to incur costs for design and
right-of-way activities. Through fiscal year 1995, Congress has
appropriated $20,300,000 for the project. To date, $20,300,000
in prior-year appropriations remain unobligated. The project
was not authorized in ISTEA.
Pittsburgh Airport busway.--The Committee recommends
$22,630,000 for the airport busway project, the same as the
House allowance. The Port Authority (PATransit) is constructing
a 20-mile busway in the airport corridor between downtown
Pittsburgh and the Greater Pittsburgh International Airport.
The project is estimated to cost $326,800,000. The busway
project is presently under construction. The local share
commitment to the project is 21 percent. The cost-effectiveness
index is $4 per new passenger trip. FTA has determined that the
grantee has the financial capacity to build and operate this
project. An FFGA was issued for this project in October 1994.
The FFGA envisions $121,000,000 in section 5309 new start
funds, $10,000,000 in section 5309 bus funds, $76,500,000 in
CMAQ funds, and $49,300,000 from highway funding sources.
Through fiscal year 1995, Congress has appropriated $75,900,000
in new start funds for the project. To date, $75,900,000 has
been obligated to the project with no prior-year appropriations
remaining unobligated. The FFGA funding schedule calls for
$22,630,000 in new starts funding in fiscal year 1996, and
$22,500,000 in fiscal year 1997.
Portland Westside LRT project.--The Committee recommends
$130,140,000 for the Portland Westside LRT project. The House
provided $85,500,000 for this project. The Tri-County
Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon [Tri-Met] is
building a $910,000,000 light rail transit extension from
downtown Portland, west through Beaverton, to a terminus in
downtown Hillsboro. The Federal Transit Administration views
the Portland project as a good example of innovative land use
initiatives that integrate transportation planning and land
use. One initiative is the use of urban growth boundaries that
prevent urban sprawl and encourage development along
transportation corridors, especially high-capacity transit
corridors. This serves to promote transit ridership and
economic activity. Another initiative is the cap on downtown
parking spaces that encourages transit use. In downtown
Portland, the 18-mile extension will connect to the existing
Banfield LRT line (MAX) that operates between Portland and
Gresham. The project is under construction. The local share
commitment to this project is 27 percent. The cost-
effectiveness index is $16 per new passenger trip. In September
1992, FTA and Tri-Met entered into a full funding grant
agreement [FFGA] for the 12-mile segment from downtown Portland
to 185th Avenue. The section 5309 new starts share for this
segment is $516,000,000. The FFGA was amended in 1994 to add
the 6.2-mile Hillsboro extension, bringing the total section
5309 share to $590,000,000. FTA formula and flexible funds
totaling $74,000,000 are also being used in this project.
Through fiscal year 1995, Congress has appropriated
$264,700,000 in new start Funds. To date, $264,700,000 has been
obligated with no prior-year appropriations remaining
unobligated. The FFGA funding schedule calls for $108,000,000
in new starts funding in fiscal year 1996. The Committee
provided additional funds to enable this project to catch up on
shortfalls in its prior-years allocations. An additional
$217,400,000 is needed in fiscal year 1997 and 1998. The
project received an ISTEA earmark of $515,000,000.
Sacramento.--The Committee recommends no funding for the
Sacramento south corridor project. The House provided
$2,000,000 for this project. The Sacramento Regional Transit
District [RTD] is proposing an 6-mile, $223,000,000 LRT line on
the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way. The local share
commitment to this project is 20 percent. The cost-
effectiveness index is $6 per new passenger trip. Through
fiscal year 1995, $1,980,000 has been appropriated for this
project. To date, $1,980,000 has been obligated to the project,
with no prior-year appropriations remaining unobligated. FTA
has not given a financial rating. ISTEA authorized $26,000,000
for this project.
Salt Lake City LRT.--The Committee recommends $14,519,000
for the Salt Lake City south LRT project. The House provided
only $5,000,000 for this project. The Committee disagrees with
the House's restriction on the use of these funds and has
deleted the restriction from the bill.
The Committee supports local decisionmaking on the use of
these funds consistent with the projects full funding grant
agreement. We anticipate receiving future funding requests from
the administration regarding this project. The project sponsors
believe that this project will address the increased transit
demands that accompany current and future economic and
demographic growth in the Salt Lake metropolitan area.
The Utah Transit Authority [UTA] plans to construct a 15-
mile light rail transit [LRT] line from downtown Salt Lake City
to suburban areas to the south. The LRT line would operate at-
grade on city streets in the downtown and utilize a railroad
right-of-way already owned by UTA to the south of downtown. The
project is currently in the final design stage. The local share
commitment to this project is 20 percent. The cost-
effectiveness index is $4 per new passenger trip. The total
cost of the project is estimated to be $312,500,000 with a
section 5309 share of $237,400,000. Through fiscal year 1995,
Congress has appropriated $29,000,000 (including $15,520,000 in
funds from fiscal years prior to ISTEA) for right-of-way
acquisition, engineering, and design. To date, $29,000,000 has
been obligated to this project with no prior-year
appropriations remaining unobligated. This project received an
ISTEA earmark of $131,000,000.
San Juan, Puerto Rico Tren-Urbano.--The Committee
recommends no funding for the San Juan Tren-Urbano project. The
House provided $15,000,000 for this project. The Puerto Rico
Department of Transportation and Public Works [DTPW] plans to
construct an 11.8-mile, 16-station, $965,000,000 light rail
line which would connect the major activity centers in the San
Juan region, including Santurce, Hato Rey, Rio Piedras, and
Bayamon. A second phase would extend the rail system east to
Carolina and northwest further into Santurce. DTPW is currently
preparing an EIS and preliminary engineering for the first
phase. The finance plan envisions section 5309 funding of
$322,000,000 (33 percent) with other Federal funding of
$240,000,000 (25 percent) and a local share commitment of
$403,000,000 (42 percent). The cost-effectiveness index is $4
per new passenger trip. FTA has assigned a financial rating of
high to this project. Through fiscal year 1995, $4,960,000 has
been appropriated for this project. To date, $4,960,000 has
been obligated with no prior-year appropriations remaining
unobligated. The project is not authorized in ISTEA.
San Francisco BART Airport/Tasman extensions.--The
Committee recommends $22,620,000 for the San Francisco BART
Airport/Tasman extensions. The House provided $10,000,000 for
this project and restricted its use to the BART Airport
extension. The Committee disagrees with the restriction and has
deleted it. The BART extension to San Francisco International
Airport is a 6.4-mile, three-station extension from Colma to
San Francisco International Airport and Milpitas. The project
is now in the preliminary engineering stage. Costs for
constructing the project range from $847,000,000 to $1,269,000,
depending upon the alternative. The cost-effectiveness index is
$25 per new passenger trip for the locally preferred
alternative. FTA has assigned a financial rating of low due to
apparent shortfalls in the bay area's current overall capital
financing plan. The Tasman project is a 12.4-mile surface light
rail transit [LRT] line from northeast San Jose to downtown
Mountain View, connecting to the existing northern terminus of
the Guadalupe corridor LRT system near Great America Parkway in
the city of Santa Clara. The $500,000,000 project would also
connect with the Caltrain commuter rail system at the downtown
Mountain View station. Preliminary engineering was completed in
August 1992, the final EIS was approved in December 1992, and
final design was started in May 1993. The local share
commitment to this project would flow from a 0.5-cent sales
tax. However, the tax has been invalidated by a State court and
a ruling on an appeal to restore the tax has not yet been
issued. For this reason, FTA has assigned the project a low
rating. The cost-effectiveness index for the Tasman project is
$33 per new passenger trip. Overall, $205,400,000 of the
$512,750,000 authorized by ISTEA in section 5309 new starts
funds has been appropriated by Congress for the San Francisco
Bay region through fiscal year 1995. Consistent with the ISTEA
legislation, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission has
allocated these funds among the Colma BART extension, BART
airport project, and Tasman LRT project and obligated
$172,200,000 to date, including $55,900,000 to Colma,
$55,500,000 to the airport extension and $60,800,000 to the
Tasman project. Only a $33,200,000 allocation to Tasman has yet
to be obligated. The affected agencies are currently working
with MTC to determine future allocations.
Seattle-Renton-Tacoma commuter rail.--The Committee
recommends no new funding for the Seattle-Renton-Tacoma
commuter rail project. The House also provided no funds for
this project. The three-county Central Puget Sound Regional
Transit Authority [RTA] Board has adopted a master plan for
transit which includes commuter rail service between Seattle
and Tacoma as well as additional commuter rail, LRT, and bus
service. The Seattle-Tacoma service would operate along the
approximately 40 miles of track between the two cities. In
addition to Seattle and Tacoma, service would be provided to
Tukwila, Kent, Auburn, Summer, Puyallup, and Renton. The
project is at the planning stage. The local share commitment to
this project is not yet known. Through fiscal year 1995,
Congress has appropriated $22,640,000 for the project. To date,
$20,760,000 in prior-year appropriations remains unobligated,
including $15,190,000 from fiscal year 1993 which has been
reprogrammed according to existing law. Information concerning
costs and benefits, cost-effectiveness index, and financial
commitment is not yet available. This project received an ISTEA
earmark of $25,000,000.
St. Louis Metrolink (St. Clair County, IL) corridor.--The
Committee recommends $13,000,000 for new railcars for St. Louis
Metrolink, but no funding for the St. Clair County corridor
LRT. The House provided $8,000,000 for railcars and $2,000,000
for design of the Illinois extension. The East-West Gateway
Coordinating Council [EWGCC] has completed a major investment
study of transit alternatives for the corridor between downtown
East St. Louis, Illinois, and the vicinity of Scott Air Force
Base. The selected alternative is a 24.8-mile LRT extension
with a capital cost of about $400,000,000. The local share
commitment to this project is 20 percent, and a low/medium
rating for financial capacity has been assigned by FTA. The
cost-effectiveness index is $30 per new passenger trip. Through
fiscal year 1995, $14,440,000 has been appropriated to this
project. To date, $450,000 has been obligated and $13,990,000
remains unobligated. This project is not authorized in ISTEA.
Tampa-Lakeland commuter rail.--The Committee recommends no
funding for the Tampa-Lakeland commuter rail project. The House
provided $1,000,000 for this project. The Tampa Commuter Rail
Authority is considering the establishment of transit service
in a 32-mile corridor between Lakeland and Tampa, FL. One
alternative is commuter rail on an existing freight line. The
Tampa Commuter Rail Authority was established after a number of
previous studies recommended that a transit system may help
relieve traffic on I-4 between Lakeland and Tampa, FL. The
Tampa Commuter Rail Authority will be completing a major
investment study to develop information on transit alternatives
in the corridor. The study is expected to be completed in mid-
1996. In fiscal year 1995, Congress appropriated $500,000 for
this corridor. The $500,000 has not yet been obligated. Pending
completion of the study, there is no information on the nature
of the project, its costs and benefits, the local share
commitment, the cost-effectiveness index, or the financial
plan. This project is not authorized in ISTEA.
Whitehall Ferry Terminal, New York.--The Committee
recommends no funding for the Whitehall Ferry Terminal study.
The House provided $5,000,000 for this project. The New York
City Economic Development Corp. and the New York City
Department of Transportation have proposed the redesign and
reconstruction of the Staten Island Ferry's Whitehall Terminal
in downtown Manhattan. The terminal was largely destroyed by
fire in 1991 and has been operating out of interim facilities
since then. In fiscal year 1995, Congress appropriated
$2,480,000 for construction. To date, the $2,480,000 remains
unobligated. Information on the cost of the project, the local
share commitment to the project, and the financial plan is not
yet available. The project is not authorized in ISTEA.
Wisconsin (Chicago) Central commuter [Metra].--The
Committee recommends $14,400,000 for the Wisconsin Central
project, the same as the House. This funding will complete the
project. This project will extend Metra commuter rail service
from downtown Chicago to the Wisconsin border (at Antioch, IL)
via the Wisconsin Central rail line. The project is being
implemented in two phases. Phase I of the project (already
fully funded) included land acquisition, track and signal
upgrades, station platform facilities, and other operations-
related improvements associated with commuter service
requirements. Phase II, costing $18,000,000, consists of
measures, such as double-tracking and sidings, to improve
passenger service on tracks that are heavily used for freight
service. Phase I is under construction; phase II is in the
preliminary engineering stage. The local share commitment to
phase II is 22 percent. This project is exempt from new start
criteria, since less than $25,000,000 of section 5309 funding
is required, and thus, a cost-effectiveness index has not been
calculated. Congress has appropriated $10,420,000 for phase I
through fiscal year 1995. This $10,400,000 has been fully
obligated. This project is not authorized in ISTEA.
Mass Transit Capital Fund
(Liquidation of Contract Authorization)
(Highway Trust Fund)
Appropriations, 1995....................................($1,500,000,000)
Budget estimate, 1996................................... (1,700,000,000)
House allowance......................................... (2,000,000,000)
Committee recommendation
(1,700,000,000)
The bill includes $1,700,000,000 to liquidate obligations
incurred under contract authority provided in section 21 of the
Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended. This is the
total amount requested by the President's budget submittal.
Interstate Transfer Grants--Transit
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $48,030,000
Budget estimate, 1996...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation
...........................
Funding in 1995 exhausts the Federal commitment to transit
capital projects substituted for previously withdrawn segments
of the interstate highway system under the provisions of 23
U.S.C. 103(e)(4). No funds were requested by the administration
in 1996 to carry out the provisions of section 1045 of Public
Law 102-240 given funding provided in 1995.
Washington Metro
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $200,000,000
Budget estimate, 1996..................................\1\ (200,000,000)
House allowance......................................... 200,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 170,000,000
\1\ This account is proposed to be replaced by funding through the
Unified Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program [UTIIP].
Public Law 96-184 (Stark-Harris legislation) enacted
January 3, 1980, authorized a total of $1,700,000,000 for
construction on the Washington Metrorail System. All of the
funds authorized under Stark-Harris have been appropriated. In
addition, the National Capital Transportation Amendments of
1990, Public Law 101-551, authorized another $1,300,000,000 in
Federal capital assistance. Through fiscal year 1995,
$649,700,000 has been appropriated, leaving a balance of
$650,300,000.
The Committee has reduced the Washington Metropolitan Area
Transportation Authority's budget request by 15 percent from
$200,000,000 to $170,000,000. This reduction is in keeping with
the steep reductions that transit authorities all over the
Nation will experience in Federal transit aid during fiscal
year 1996. The Committee understands that WMATA would achieve
savings by completing its fast track construction schedule as
planned; however, this is equally true for other new start
transit systems. Other new start systems have had to
reprioritize their needs, and seek additional sources of
funding when Federal appropriations fell short. Fairness
dictates that WMATA not be insulated from the need to readjust
its funding schedules to meet Federal appropriations targets.
The House bill also includes a new title, ``National
Capital Area Interest Arbitration Standards Act of 1995.'' The
Committee has deleted this authorizing legislation from the
bill.
Violent Crime Reduction Programs
(VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION TRUST FUND)
Appropriations, 1995....................................................
Budget estimate, 1996................................... $5,000,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation
...........................
Section 40131 of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 authorizes $10,000,000 to establish
programs for capital improvements and studies to prevent crime
in public transportation. The administration requested
$5,000,000 for these purposes in transit in fiscal year 1996.
The Committee received no allocation to enable it to fund
programs under this account.
general provisions
Capital grants availability.--The Committee concurs with
the House provision (sec. 321) limiting the availability of
earmarked capital grants to 3 years. If not obligated after
that period of time, the funds would be available for
allocation to other transit projects.
Bus overhauls.--The Committee concurs with the House
general provision allowing the use of formula capital funds to
be used for major bus overhauls (sec. 333). This provision will
help maintain the transit fleet, and preserve assets paid for
with Federal tax dollars. The provision takes effect the second
half of fiscal year 1996 (after March 31, 1996).
The transit industry has sought this provision to better
allocate scarce operating dollars, and prolong the useful life
of transit buses. This provision will promote good maintenance
practices and encourage the use of vehicles to the maximum
limit of their economic lives. Flexibility in the use of
capital funds for bus overhauls will discourage premature bus
replacement that is likely to result from large cuts in
operating aid.
The Committee understands that the entire transit industry
is expected to spend about $151,000,000 in operating aid to
overhaul buses this year. If capital funds could be used for
such overhauls, the industry projects $147,000,000, including
State and local match, to be used for bus overhauls. Some very
large transit systems would continue to use operating funds for
overhauls. The amount that could be capitalized in large areas
over 1,000,000 population is estimated to be $125,000,000, for
medium-sized areas between 200,000 and 1,000,000 population the
amount would be $15,000,000, and for small urbanized areas
below 200,000 population the amount would be $7,000,000.
WMATA oversight.--The Committee has deleted the House
provision (sec. 341) requiring that FTA's oversight of the
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority be conducted
from the agency's Washington, DC, offices. FTA has elected to
transfer management and oversight of WMATA's transit grant
program to the Philadelphia regional office because regional
offices are organizationally structured for the primary
function of serving their respective grantees, whereas FTA
headquarters organization and staff is focused on policy,
guidance, and overall management. In anticipation of the
additional WMATA oversight duties, FTA has increased the
staffing level in the Philadelphia regional office by two FTE
positions.
ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
The St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation is a wholly
owned Government corporation established by the act of May 13,
1954, responsible for the operation, maintenance, and
development of the United States portion of the seaway between
Montreal and Lake Erie.
Operations and Maintenance
(Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund)
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $10,229,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 10,243,000
House allowance......................................... 10,190,500
Committee recommendation
10,150,000
The Corporation's operations program provides for operation
of all facilities, for maintenance--including major items which
are deferred to the nonnavigation season, for planning and
development activities, and for undertaking various capital
improvements to upgrade and modernize its facilities.
Appropriations are made to the Seaway Corporation from the
harbor maintenance trust fund established by Public Law 99-662.
These appropriations are the primary source of financing for
the operations and maintenance activities of the Corporation.
The Congress authorizes the Corporation to make
expenditures from available funds and borrowing authority, and
to enter into contracts without regard to fiscal year
limitations as are necessary to carry out the programs set
forth in its budget.
For fiscal year 1996, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $10,150,000. This is $93,000 less than the
budget request and $40,500 less than the House allowance. The
Committee does not direct that this reduction be made from any
specific line item of the fiscal year 1996 budget request. In
recent years, however, there are three areas for which costs
have either grown or remained at the same levels without what
the Committee considers adequate justification: consulting
services, travel and transportation of persons, and personnel
compensation at the Seaway's Washington, DC, office (despite
the fact that the number of staff at the Washington office is
decreasing). These areas should be carefully considered when
making adjustments to the fiscal year 1996 budget.
GPS vessel traffic service.--The Committee has included
bill language prohibiting the use of appropriated harbor
maintenance trust funds or the Seaway Corporation's financial
reserve fund in fiscal year 1996 for design, development, or
procurement of a global positioning system vessel traffic
service system. This moratorium on the GPS vessel traffic
service system is intended to provide the Seaway Corporation
time to prepare a detailed study on possibilities for
privatization of such service. The Seaway Administrator is
thereby directed to prepare, with assistance and input from the
U.S. Coast Guard, a study of possible options for privatizing
the procurement and operation of vessel traffic services on the
American portions of the St. Lawrence Seaway. The study should
be received by the Senate and House Appropriations Committees
on or before May 1, 1996. This issue was raised by the Senate
Appropriations Committee in the fiscal year 1996 hearing
record. Chairman Hatfield asked the Seaway Corporation:
Question. Has any consideration been given to
privatizing the operation of the Seaway vessel traffic
service system? Please outline arguments for and
against privatization, and give the American Seaway
Corporation's view on the matter, as well as the
Canadian St. Lawrence Seaway Authority's, if known.
The Seaway Corporation's response follows:
Answer. No thought has been given to privatizing the
VTS program, a Government-controlled function.
In the current climate of budget austerity, this is an
inadequate response to the chairman's inquiry.
Washington, DC, and Massena seaway offices.--In many ways,
the future path of the St. Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation is uncertain. The Seaway Corporation is without an
Administrator at the present time. The administration has
proposed authorizing legislation that would make the
Corporation an independent agency. And there are preliminary
discussions regarding combining the Canadian Seaway Authority
and the American Seaway Corporation into a single, binational
seaway entity.
The day-to-day operations and maintenance of the seaway are
performed in Massena, NY. Given this fact, the comparative
staffing and nonpersonnel costs for the two offices are
somewhat disproportionate. The seaway projects a 1996 staffing
level of 164 FTE's: 145 persons in the Massena, NY, office (88
percent) and 19 persons in the Washington, DC, office (12
percent). However, the Massena office's personnel costs (salary
and benefits for the 145 employees) are projected to be
$6,780,000 (83 percent), and the Washington office's personnel
costs are projected to be $1,416,000 (17 percent). For
nonpersonnel costs (travel, transportation, communications,
utilities, printing and reproduction, Government services,
supplies, equipment, and structures), the Washington office is
projected to require $565,000 (18 percent) and the Massena
office $2,500,000 (82 percent).
The relative costs associated with maintaining two seaway
offices have been a concern of the Committee's for some time.
The seaway is directed to prepare a detailed analysis of the
respective offices' costs, both under the Corporation's current
DOT agency status, and projected for independent Government
agency status. Assume current staffing distribution, and break
out all types of office costs, with a brief description of each
cost category. Please also prepare a study of costs associated
with shifting personnel from the Washington, DC, office to
Massena, under two different scenarios: (1) Assuming the Seaway
Corporation remains within the Department of Transportation,
outline all costs associated with moving the Offices of
Communications, Development and Logistics, and Marketing from
Washington, DC, to Massena, leaving a skeleton staff of 8 to 10
persons in the DOT Nassif Building; and (2) assuming the Seaway
Corporation becomes an independent Government agency, outline
the costs associated with moving the same group of offices to
Massena. This report shall be provided to the Senate and House
Appropriations Committees on or before January 31, 1996.
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 1996, resources are requested for the management and
execution of the Offices of Hazardous Materials Safety, Airline
Statistics, Emergency Transportation, Pipeline Safety, program
and administrative support, the Transportation Safety Institute
[TSI], and the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center
[VNTSC]. Funds are also requested for the emergency
preparedness grants program.
Research and Special Programs
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $25,995,100
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 29,249,000
House allowance......................................... 26,030,000
Committee recommendation
24,281,000
The Committee has provided a total of $24,281,000 for the
``Research and special programs'' account.
The following table summarizes the Committee
recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Committee
1995enacted 1996estimate Houseallowance recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous materials safety...................... $12,793,000 $12,782,000 $12,600,000 $12,987,000
(Positions)................................. (113) (111) (111) (113)
Aviation information management \1\............. $2,449,000 .............. $2,322,000 ..............
(Positions)................................. (29) .............. (22) ..............
Emergency transportation........................ $1,312,000 $1,301,000 $1,086,000 $962,000
(Positions)................................. (7) (7) (7) (7)
Research and technology......................... $2,515,000 $7,604,000 $3,209,000 $3,451,000
(Positions)................................. (13) (14) (13) (12)
Program and administrative support.............. $6,926,000 $7,562,000 $7,394,000 $7,292,000
(Positions)................................. (45) (46) (46) (44)
Accountwide adjustment.......................... .............. .............. -$581,000 -$411,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total, research and special programs...... $25,995,000 $29,249,000 $26,030,000 $24,281,000
(Positions)........................... (207) (178) (199) (176)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The administration requested $2,282,000 for this function.
hazardous materials safety
Hazardous materials safety [HMS] 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.
HMS 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.
Research and analysis.--The Committee has provided an
additional $44,000 above the budget request to enhance
regulatory analysis and research activities to support cost-
effective rulemakings. This adjustment will restore funding to
the fiscal year 1995 level.
Inspection and enforcement.--The Committee has provided an
additional $40,000 above the budget request to restore funding
for the HM Specialist Internship Program as part of the OHMS
program. The Committee does not support funding for this
program in the emergency preparedness grant program, as
proposed. The intern program provides State and local officials
with first-hand experience on the Federal enforcement and
regulatory program, while providing OHMS with a State and local
perspective needed to improve Federal/State hazmat
partnerships. The HM Specialist Internship Program is primarily
geared toward enforcement personnel and is not targeted toward
emergency response concerns. Funds for the intern program
should not have to compete for the limited funds available in
the grant program.
Rulemaking support.--The Committee notes that a number of
important safety rulemakings, including intrastate
transportation, rail tank car safety, and infectious
substances, have not yet been finalized. The Committee wants to
ensure that forthcoming OHMS regulations will be cost effective
and are based on careful scientific and economic analyses. To
achieve this objective and to help OHMS eliminate or improve
other regulations, the Committee has provided an additional
$116,000 for rulemaking support. This adjustment will maintain
rulemaking activities at the fiscal year 1995 level.
Hazmat training.--The Committee does not agree with the
RSPA request to reduce significantly compliance training for
State and local enforcement officials. Effective enforcement
requires a sufficient number of adequately trained personnel to
provide a credible deterrent to noncompliance. The Committee
has provided an additional $100,000 to restore these essential
training activities to the fiscal year 1995 level.
RSPA personnel.--The Committee denies the request to
eliminate two FTP and three FTE from the Office of Hazardous
Materials Safety [OHMS]. These positions were originally funded
to implement the Sanitary Food Transportation Act [SFTA], but
these experts also have been used to work on the substantial
regulatory backlog facing the OHMS. The Committee asserts that
these personnel are still needed to develop cost-effective
regulations and work on the SFTA. The Committee notes that the
number of fundable positions allocated to OHMS has been reduced
during the last few years, while the workload has only
increased to meet the requirements of several new statutes. In
contrast, RSPA's Office of Management and Administration [OMA]
has been minimally affected by downsizing and has not shared
its proportionate reduction with other RSPA offices.
Consequently, the Committee recommends a decrease of two FTP
and three FTE from OMA. This action would be in keeping with
the Administration's goal to reduce administrative support in
selected areas by 50 percent by fiscal year 1999.
Hazardous materials enforcement.--The Committee commends
the Office of Hazardous Materials Enforcement for the increase
in the vitality and vigor of its compliance program. For
example, this Office has increased the number of enforcement
cases initiated, the number of cased closed, and the number of
penalties collected. In addition, this Office is seeking an
array of means to improve the timing of its followup visits to
companies that were judged not to be in compliance with the
hazardous materials transportation regulations [HMTR]. The
Committee appreciates the fact that the regional OHMS offices
are assisting State and local enforcement officials and
conducting joint inspections when appropriate. Such efforts
should be expanded whenever possible.
The Committee has reviewed the civil penalty enforcement
guidelines for the HMTR that were prepared in response to
Senate Report 103-150. These guidelines promote consistency in
the implementation of Federal law and provide industry with
basic information that the OHMS uses in initiating its penalty
assessment process. The Committee applauds RSPA's response to
the Committee's directive and urges the agency to disseminate
this penalty guideline widely throughout the regulated
community.
In summary the Committee recommends the following
adjustments to the budget request.
Hazardous materials:
Registration system....................................... -$182,000
Research and development.................................. -23,000
International program..................................... -40,000
Research and analysis..................................... +44,000
Inspection and enforcement................................ +40,000
Rulemaking support........................................ +116,000
Information system........................................ -50,000
Hazardous materials training.............................. +100,000
Two FTP's/three FTE's..................................... +200,000
Aviation information management
The Aviation Information Management [AIM] Program provides
financial and statistical economic data on individual air
carrier operations and the air transportation industry. The AIM
provides airline data and special project data services to DOT
programs and users. It also arranges for access to the data by
non-DOT parties through its reports reference room, the RSPA's
center for transportation information at the Volpe National
Transportation Systems Center, and private sector information
firms.
The AIM Program became part of RSPA in 1985 to provide
separation of its administration and direction from its users
in the Office of the Secretary [OST] and the Federal Aviation
Administration [FAA]. In fiscal year 1991, the airline tariffs
function was transferred from OST to RSPA. Beginning in fiscal
year 1995, the Department of Transportation transferred the AIM
Program to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics consistent
with BTS' primary role in statistical oversight. In fiscal year
1996, funding for the AIM Program has been shifted to BTS and
OST.
The Airline Tariffs Program is responsible for
administering the Department's program of air carrier tariff
filings. Tariffs are filed in accordance with the Federal
Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, and 14 CFR part 221 of the
Department's regulations. U.S. and foreign air carriers must
file the tariffs, setting passenger fares, cargo rates,
additional charges, and the rules related to the application of
the fares and rates, where the tariffs are applicable to
international air transportation.
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. The office 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 is also charged with the
development of crisis management plans and the implementation
of these plans nationally and regionally in an emergency.
The Committee recommends $962,000 for emergency
transportation, including a reduction of $339,000 for the
crisis management center. Last year, the Committee supported a
one-time increase in funds to modernize the center. Given the
existence of the Federal Aviation Administration Operations
Center, U.S. Coast Guard emergency commands, the National
Response Center, and the Federal Emergency Management
Administration, the Committee maintains that the funds
recommended herein will be more than sufficient for the Office
of Emergency Transportation to conduct its functions.
Research and technology
The Office of Research and Technology [ORT] assists in the
definition of research policy, maintains oversight over
research and development programs conducted by the Department,
and provides coordination of research among the modes. This
mission is accomplished by providing staff support to the
Director of Technology Deployment (in OST), as Chairman of the
DOT Research and Technology Coordinating Council. ORT is also
charged with assuring that transportation research from around
the country is made available in useful form to Federal, State,
and local elected and appointed officials, the transportation
community, and academia. The program also provides program
development and research dissemination assistance in the system
of the University Transportation Centers Program.
The Committee has not provided the amount requested for R&D
planning and management. The Committee does not want to create
what amounts to a separate and new research institution within
the Department under RSPA's leadership, and furthermore, the
current budgetary situation does not allow for such an
increase. Furthermore, because a strong R&D program is needed
to advance transportation safety and technology, the Committee
has recommended sufficient R&D funding in each of the modes.
The Director for Technology Deployment, the Research and
Technology Coordinating Council, the Research and Development
Steering Committee, each of the modal administrations, and
investigators working at the Volpe Center (who collectively
work on all modes of transportation) should continue to work
diligently to improve research coordination, to further
intermodal research activities, and to promote technology
transfer.
With the funds provided to RSPA, the Committee maintains
that the Director for Technology Deployment and the
Administrator will be able to contribute toward these
objectives. The highest priority for these funds should be: (1)
to write and distribute an improved Surface Transportation R&D
plan; (2) to ensure that transportation issues receive
sufficient attention in the deliberations of the National
Science and Technology Council; and (3) to ensure coordination
of transportation-related research within the DOT and within
the Federal Government.
The RSPA Administrator and the Director for Technology
Deployment should keep the Committee more informed on their
contributions to the National Science and Technology Council
and on technology deployment, transfer and coordination
activities at DOT. To this end, the Committee requests a
detailed letter outlining the scope and nature of these
activities and their results to be submitted to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations before March 1, 1996.
The Committee has carefully reviewed the second edition of
the Surface Transportation Research and Development Plan that
was required by section 6009(b) of the ISTEA. Within the funds
provided for R&D planning and management, the Committee expects
that the third edition will truly be a strategic plan that
details in broad terms the future direction of the Department's
research for the next 5 years. The plan should present evidence
of careful intermodal coordination, integration, and analysis.
Furthermore, the plan should reflect substantial guidance
provided by the Research and Technology Coordinating Council
and the Research and Technology Steering Committee.
The Committee believes that the marketing of research
results and outreach activities should be an inherent part of
each agency's functions and sees little need for RSPA to
develop and implement duplicative efforts. Thus, the Committee
agrees with the House recommendation that no additional funds
beyond the amount spent during fiscal year 1995 should be used
for technology promotion.
The Committee approves the transfer of one position to the
Office of the Secretary for Radionavigation R&D. The
Committee's recommendation does not include the two new
positions requested for research and technology activities.
This adjustment leaves 12 positions in the Office of Research,
Technology, and Analysis.
The Committee proposes to eliminate funding for the
position of Associate Administrator for Research, Technology
and Analysis. This position has been vacant for more than 7
months and is unlikely to be filled until a decision is reached
on the Department's reorganization proposal. Many of the
responsibilities of this Office are now being implemented by
the Director for Technology Deployment in the Office of the
Secretary.
In summary the Committee recommends the following
adjustments to the budget request.
Research and technology
Reductions:
FTE's -2.................................................. -$106,000
Planning and development..................................-2,900,000
Promotion activities...................................... -847,000
Deployment................................................ -300,000
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 denies funds for the personnel support
contract for the Office of Management and Administration and
for the support contract for the Office of Policy and Program
Support. Secretarial and other staff support is available
throughout RSPA to help conduct the activities for which
contract funds were sought.
Funding for RSPA's information resources management
activity has been increasing rapidly, going from $150,000
during fiscal year 1993 to $425,000 in fiscal year 1995. To
bring this expenditure more in line with fiscal constraints,
the Committee recommends $400,000, which is $70,000 less than
the budget request.
Accountwide adjustments.--The Committee agrees with the
House decision to reduce funding for training (-$109,000) and
equipment (-$302,000) and agrees with these reductions. The
Committee is concerned that some of the training funds
requested would pay for specialized courses that are beginning
to detract from the implementation of the basic safety and
technology functions of RSPA. In order to limit the frequency
of unnecessary training activities, the Committee recommends
that a substantial portion of the reductions in operating
expenses be taken from the training budget, especially funds
used to support courses that do not strengthen enforcement and
regulatory capabilities. The RSPA Administrator shall ensure
that this reduction does not affect the availability of funds
for hazardous materials inspections or assistance to State
hazardous materials personnel.
volpe national transportation systems center
The Committee has reviewed the work acceptance criteria now
governing the activities conducted at the Volpe Center. These
criteria should reduce the abuses that were previously noted by
the inspector general. The Committee asserts that timely
approval of proposals submitted to Volpe is essential for
efficient R&D management. Given the workload of the RSPA
Administrator, the Committee strongly supports efforts to
streamline the work acceptance processes by delegating project
approval authority back to the Director of the Volpe Center.
Pipeline Safety
(Pipeline Safety Fund)
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $37,340,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 42,418,000
House allowance......................................... 29,941,000
Committee recommendation
32,973,000
The Research and Special Programs Administration is also
responsible for the Department's Pipeline Safety Program. This
activity was funded as a separate account for the first time in
fiscal year 1988 and is entirely financed by user fees assessed
to the pipeline operators and by fees paid to the oilspill
liability trust fund [OSLTF].
Included under this account are the operations activity
providing for the salaries and expenses and the supervisory and
management functions for pipeline safety regulatory and
enforcement programs. Also included is research and development
to support the Pipeline Safety Program and grants-in-aid to
State agencies that conduct a Pipeline Safety Program. The
budget request included $2,698,000 for activities to be funded
from the OSLTF which has been included by both the House and
Senate.
For pipeline safety activities within RSPA, the Committee
recommends $32,973,000.
Pipeline safety personnel.--The Committee disagrees with
the House allocation, which abrogates an agreement reached in
the 1995 conference report regarding personnel for the Office
of Pipeline Safety [OPS]. The conferees agreed to include
funding to support an additional 33 full-time permanent
positions and 18 full-time equivalent staff in fiscal year
1995. The Committee's recommendation includes the funds
requested to annualize the additional 15 FTE's during fiscal
year 1996 for a total of 105 FTE's and 105 FTP's. These
additional inspectors are needed to improve compliance with the
safety regulations, to work with industry to further the
purposes of pipeline safety and environmental protection, and
to ensure effective oversight of the State grant program.
These additional personnel will address current shortfalls
in the OPS inspection program. For example, due to the limited
number of Federal inspectors, only about 10 percent of all
reported accidents are investigated by Federal inspectors. In
addition, OPS regional offices have typically been unable to
meet their inspection goals because of a shortage of
inspectors. Additional personnel would increase the ability of
OPS to meet an inspection interval of 2 years for high-risk
pipelines versus the current 4 year average. Furthermore,
needed inspection of new pipeline construction and renewal
could be performed. OPS would be able to inspect additional low
stress pipelines, a new area of responsibility that has
substantially increased the number of pipeline miles subject to
OPS jurisdiction. The proposed risk management demonstration
projects will only add to the inspection workload of OPS.
Operating expenses.--The Committee recommends a reduction
in the operating expenses of OPS of $306,000 and requires that
the funds necessary to conduct inspections and to work with
State partners receive the highest priority for allocation.
Information systems operations.--The OPS will need
substantial information resources to develop and justify future
regulatory improvements and to monitor demonstrations of
regulatory flexibility that are likely to be forthcoming under
pipeline reauthorization legislation. However, because of
budgetary limitations, the Committee recommends $1,502,000 for
information systems, which is $250,000 less than the amount
requested.
Risk assessment and technical studies.--The Committee
recommends $1,750,000 for risk assessment and technical
studies. This allowance includes the $250,00 requested for
regulatory analysis as well as an additional $250,000 to
improve the adequacy of cost benefit analyses and risk
assessments which the OPS should be conducting.
Field engineering support.--The Committee recommends
$300,000 for continuation of this activity in fiscal year 1996.
The funds provided shall be used to provide technological
expertise or testing facilities that OPS lacks. Such needs as
metallurgical testing, fracture mechanics, welding analysis,
and radiography assistance are areas for which such assistance
would be warranted. The Committee does not agree that these
funds should be used for drug testing activities, as proposed
by the House committee. This function has historically been
conducted using Federal inspectors and headquarters personnel,
is closely related to possible enforcement activities, and
should be conducted only by Federal personnel rather than by
contractors. The Committee expects any available funds from
prior year obligations for contracted field engineering support
to be used in fiscal year 1996 for continued work in these
areas.
Training and information dissemination.--The Committee
recommends $925,000 for training and information dissemination,
which is $54,000 more than requested, but the same amount that
was appropriated in fiscal year 1995. Federal and State
inspectors must receive adequate training to ensure a quality
compliance program. To be certified to stay in the grant
program, State inspectors must complete specified training
requirements. The Committee disagrees with the House
recommendation that the risk management curriculum should be
postponed. The development of these courses will require a
substantial lead time and this information is needed to help
inspectors make better evaluations consistent with the existing
OPS waiver authority and forthcoming changes in authorizing
law.
Mapping.--The mapping project will provide OPS with
location information on pipelines so that the agency can more
efficiently and wisely make the safety and environmental
protection decisions necessary to execute its mission. Accurate
maps will assist in response efforts during accidents or
natural disasters, especially those maps that show the location
of high density populations or environmentally sensitive areas.
The mapping project will help OPS to determine the risks
pipelines pose and where prevention and monitoring will do the
most good. The project responds to the 1992 statutory
requirement to better protect environmentally sensitive areas
through which pipelines run. Pipeline maps prepared by industry
are not integrated in a comprehensive manner and do not meet
the needs of the agency.
Although OPS has been working closely with industry and its
State partners through the mapping quality action team, OPS has
not yet chosen the final strategy to procure the necessary
mapping system. Consequently, the total costs to acquire and
maintain the system have not yet been determined. Because of
the value of mapping and the need to maintain close oversight
over this project, the Committee wants to be kept abreast of
progress on this activity. To this end, the RSPA Administrator
should send a detailed letter to both the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations before April 1, 1996, specifying
the final costs of the project and the approach to be taken to
meet the needs of the agency at the least cost. Because of
budgetary limitations, the Committee recommends $800,000 for
the mapping initiative.
Public education campaign.--The Committee directs that,
before funds for the national public information campaign are
obligated, OPS submit a definitive plan for allocation of these
funds to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. The
plan shall detail how this campaign will contribute to pipeline
safety and be coordinated with similar non-Federal activities.
The Committee requests that this plan also be submitted for
comment to the appropriate pipeline advisory committees.
Nondestructive evaluation technology.--The Committee
recommends $1,000,000 for NDE work, which is $1,100,000 less
than the amount requested. The goal of this research is to
advance technology that detects dents and flaws and to
determine the adequacy of repair and remediation strategies
used to return pipelines to service. These funds are necessary
to ensure that OPS helps advance this useful technology,
maintains continuity in its research program, and provides OPS
increased technical expertise to review technical decisions
made by pipeline operators and to deal with regulatory
initiatives. OPS will work cooperatively with the pipeline
industry to ensure that its NDE research and development
focuses on unresolved and conflicting technical issues and does
not duplicate industry work.
Information systems development.--Because of budgetary
constraints, the Committee recommends $255,000 for information
systems development, which is $400,000 less than the amount
requested.
Research and development.--The Committee wants OPS to
strategically plan the future course and direction of its R&D
program. When asked what technical advances have resulted from
research sponsored during the last 3 fiscal years by the OPS,
the agency only cited studies on supervisory control and data
acquisition methods. OPS indicated that none of the research
projects planned for fiscal year 1996 support near-term
rulemaking. The Committee, therefore, directs the Administrator
to submit before June 1, 1996, to both the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations, a 5-year strategic plan for the
Office of Pipeline Safety R&D program. The Committee has
requested similar plans of other agencies of the department and
believes that they serve a useful purpose for both the agency
and the Committee. This plan will ensure that there is a solid
foundation on which future cost-effective regulations can be
based. The Administrator also will ensure that OPS, as well as
other offices, are placing R&D reports into the National
Technical Information Service.
A draft of the 5-year plan should be submitted for review
and comment by the appropriate pipeline advisory committees.
The Committee disagrees with RSPA's assertion that it would be
premature to request comments on any aspect of the budget
request until OMB formally approves the budget. The Committee
notes that other DOT agencies discuss their draft R&D
submittals referencing specific initiatives and proposed
funding levels at public advisory committee meetings.
OPS enforcement program.--During the last few years,
Congress took the initiative to either recommend new pipeline
inspectors that were not requested in the budget or to approve
those that were requested. The Committee expected that the
addition of new inspectors would have resulted in substantial
improvements in the vitality and effectiveness of the OPS
enforcement program. Unfortunately, this has not been the case.
For example, during the last 2 years, OPS data indicate that
the number of pipeline incidents, number of pipeline fatalities
and injuries, and amount of associated property damage has been
increasing. During this same period, the number of warning
letters issued, the amount of civil penalties assessed and
collected, the number of enforcement cases closed, and the
number of accident investigations decreased. The Committee
directs that RSPA Administrator to review the targeting,
vitality and vigor of the inspection and civil penalty process
and to respond with a detailed letter to be submitted before
December 1, 1995, to the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees as to what steps will be taken to improve the
enforcement program and to improve compliance.
Although the amount of civil penalties proposed and
collected is only one means to promote compliance, it is
usually an effective one. The Committee understands that OPS is
working on other measures of the effectiveness of its
compliance program. The Committee strongly encourages these
efforts and looks forward to receiving data on other measures
besides the ones cited above.
OILSPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND
The Committee recommends $2,698,000 to be derived from the
oilspill liability trust fund for implementation of the OPS
responsibilities under the OPA. RSPA has concluded that as a
result of industry improving its facility response plans and
participating in spill drills, the pipeline industry has
greatly improved its overall preparedness. The funds provided
will allow exercising of these plans, publication of a lessons
learned document, review of response plans with significant
changes, and a determination of a baseline assessing the
ability of industry to respond to specific pipeline releases.
OPS has completed its initial review and approval of more
than 1,100 spill response plans. The Committee is aware that
some State agencies and industry groups pay for drills
independent of RSPA support. OPS personnel should make
continued use of such exercises to reduce Federal expenditures
on similar drills. The Committee supports OPS efforts to work
closely with other Federal agencies in crafting a single
response plan that a company can use to meet all Federal
requirements for oilspill prevention and response.
Pipeline grant program.--The Committee recommends
$13,500,000 for the natural gas and hazardous liquid pipeline
safety grants, which is $1,200,000 less than the amount
requested, but the same as the fiscal year 1995 appropriation.
The Committee has not provided any funds for separate risk
assessment grants because legislation allowing these grants to
go to other entities besides State pipeline agencies has not
yet been authorized.
In addition to conducting conventional pipeline safety
audits, the funds provided may be used to conduct risk
assessments or to build the capability needed for such
assessments, provided that the grant goes directly to the State
pipeline agency as required under current law. OPS informed the
Committee that there are at least 10 States that could use
these funds to conduct risk assessments.
The Committee directs that RSPA submit a letter to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations before April l,
1996, indicating on a State-by-State basis, the extent to which
States are using existing information resources and expertise
to allocate inspection resources primarily on a risk basis. The
Committee expects that RSPA will encourage the States to focus
on specific areas where the consequences of a pipeline spill
would have the most adverse impact on the either the
environment, drinking water, or densely populated centers.
The Committee's recommendation includes $1,500,000 for the
establishment and development of one-call notification systems.
These funds will be used for a diversity of purposes including
enacting, enhancing, or implementing one call legislation or
regulations, encouraging damage prevention programs and
associated mapping and enforcement activities. These funds are
provided because one call systems are the best means of
reducing third party damage to pipelines. Pipeline release
reports submitted to DOT from operators indicate that third
party damage or damage caused by outside forces is the number
one cause of all pipeline releases. The Committee has increased
the amount set aside for one call systems because these systems
offer tremendous promise to prevent pipeline incidents and
because the demand for this set aside in fiscal year 1995 was
substantially over the amount made available.
OPS indicates that there are substantial opportunities to
improve State one call systems. OPS asserts that only five
States have a timely one-call enforcement program, about 17
States still do not have mandatory membership by all
underground facility operators, and only 23 States have
emergency service available on a 24-hour basis. The funds
provided herein will be used to address these concerns. RSPA
stated that the funds previously spent on one call damage
prevention programs have resulted in a lowering of excavation-
related failures in some pipelines.
Emergency Preparedness Grants
(Emergency Preparedness Fund)
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $400,000
(Limitation)........................................ 10,800,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 400,000
(Limitation)........................................ 11,338,000
House allowance......................................... 400,000
(Limitation)........................................ 8,890,000
Committee recommendation................................ 400,000
(Limitation)........................................ 9,200,000
Emergency Preparedness Grants
Limitation on Obligations
The Committee recommends a total of $9,200,000 to be
appropriated from the hazardous materials shipper and carrier
registration fee fund. In addition to the amount provided,
$400,000 is directly appropriated for the training curriculum
activities authorized under existing law. The remaining funds
are allocated under a fiscal year 1996 funding limitation to be
distributed as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Budget House Committee
1995 enacted estimate allowance recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grants.......................................... $9,650,000 $9,738,000 $7,350,000 $7,650,000
Technical assistance............................ 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000
Administrative costs............................ 500,000 500,000 440,000 450,000
Emergency response guidebook.................... .............. 700,000 700,000 700,000
Supplemental training grants.................... 250,000 .............. .............. ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... 10,800,000 11,338,000 8,890,000 9,200,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $39,891,200
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 40,238,000
House allowance......................................... 40,238,000
Committee recommendation
39,891,200
The Office of Inspector General [OIG] was created by the
Inspector General Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-452). It is
intended to be an independent and objective organization with
the explicit mission of: (1) Promoting organizational
efficiency and effectiveness; (2) preventing and detecting
fraud and abuse; and (3) providing a means of keeping the
Secretary of Transportation and Congress fully and currently
informed of problems and deficiencies in the administration of
departmental programs and operations.
The headquarters audit operation is composed of the Office
of Transportation Program Audits and the Office of Information
Technology, Secretarial, and Financial Audits. Field offices
are located in Baltimore and 7 of 10 standard Federal regions.
There are also six regional investigative offices which are
responsible for all investigations within their designated
areas and two regional inspections and evaluations offices.
Funds are included to implement the provisions of the Chief
Financial Officers Act of 1990.
The Committee recommends $39,891,200 which is $346,800
below the budget request. The Committee has reduced the budget
request by holding funding to the fiscal year 1995 level.
BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS
Appropriations, 1995....................................................
Budget estimate, 1996................................... $2,322,000
(By transfer)....................................... (20,000,000)
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 2,200,000
(By transfer)
(20,000,000)
The Aviation Statistics Program is proposed for transfer
from the Research and Special Programs Administration to this
new account. The rationale for this transfer is to put the
responsibility for the compilation and analysis of airline
economic data with the office that has broad authority to
collect and analyze transportation statistics across a wide
spectrum. Airline data is a significant component in DOT's
intermodal data banks because most interstate and international
commercial passengers travel by air. This program includes a
small field office located in Anchorage, AK, which provides
consumers with reliable and timely airline data related to
essential air service and intra-Alaskan mail rate programs.
Twenty FTE's and $2,322,000 are requested in support of this
program. For fiscal year 1995, the program resources will be
transferred by a memorandum of agreement [MOU] signed by RSPA
and BTS.
The Committee has included a general fund appropriation of
$2,200,000 for the Aviation Statistics Office transfer.
TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES
ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $3,350,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 3,656,000
House allowance......................................... 3,656,000
Committee recommendation
3,500,000
The Committee recommends $3,500,000 for the operations of
the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board,
a decrease of $156,000 below the budget estimate and the House
allowance.
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 through fiscal year 1997 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 recommended level, $3,500,000, is sufficient
to fully fund all the Access Board's statutory responsibilities
and to implement planned fiscal year 1996 activities, including
accessibility guideline development and publication, research,
public communications outreach, and training programs.
The decrease below the requested amount reflects the
Committee's determination that the projected cost savings
associated with the purchase, installation, and operation of
the Department of Treasury's Glows financial accounting system
do not justify the approximately $150,000 one-time expenditure.
The Access Board estimates that the fiscal year 1996 costs for
the Glows system are $80,000 for installation of the system and
a 6-month staff training period, $70,000 for purchase of the
system's software, and an unspecified amount to purchase two
computers to run the Glows system. In response to Committee
questioning, the Access Board testified that, if it purchases
the Glows system, it will no longer use the financial,
accounting, and budget services provided by the General
Services Administration, saving the Access Board about $20,000
a year. However, the Access Board will pay $10,000 a year to
the Department of Treasury for service and support to the Glows
system, and if additional services are required, reimbursement
to Treasury will be necessary on an ad hoc basis. Thus, the
anticipated savings to the Access Board are insufficient to
justify this level of investment at the present time.
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $37,392,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 38,774,000
House allowance......................................... 38,774,000
Committee recommendation
37,500,000
The Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 established the
National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB] as an independent
Federal agency to promote transportation safety by conducting
independent accident investigations. In addition, the Act
authorizes the Board to make safety recommendations, conduct
safety studies, and oversee safety activities of other
Government agencies involved in transportation. The Board also
reviews appeals of adverse actions 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.
The bill includes an appropriation of $37,500,000, which is
$108,000 above the fiscal year 1995 level. Due to fiscal
constraints, this funding is $1,274,000 below the
administration's budget request. The amount recommended
provides for a full-time equivalent [FTE] employment level of
350. The following table incorporates the NTSB's internal
realignment of administrative functions and provides for
salaries and expenses to be distributed as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Staff (FTE) Budgetauthority
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Policy and direction................... 45 $5,459,000
Aviation safety........................ 122 12,895,000
Surface transportation safety.......... 94 10,139,000
Research and engineering............... 48 5,126,000
Administration......................... 31 2,596,000
Administrative law judges.............. 10 1,285,000
--------------------------------
Total............................ 350 37,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee agrees with the House expectation that it be
advised in cases where the Board plans to deviate in any way
from its total FTE allocations or by more than 10 percent from
the funding allocations listed above.
Emergency Fund
Appropriations, 1995....................................................
Budget estimate, 1996................................... $360,802
House allocation........................................ 160,802
Committee recommendation
360,802
The Committee recommendation of $360,802 for the emergency
fund is $200,000 more than the House allowance and the same as
the budget request. This brings the total available in the
National Transportation Safety Board's emergency fund to
$1,000,000, the amount specified when the fund was created in
Public Law 97-267. This fund is used for extraordinary accident
investigation expenses, when those investigations would
otherwise be impeded by lack of funds.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $30,302,000
Budget estimate, 1996................................... 28,884,000
House allowance......................................... 13,379,000
Committee recommendation................................ 13,379,000
\1\ The appropriation for the Office of the Secretary includes
$4,705,000 for the ICC sunset.
The Interstate Commerce Commission [ICC] is an independent
agency created by Congress in 1887 to regulate interstate
transportation.
The Committee intends to implement the fiscal year 1996
budget resolution assumption which would terminate the
Interstate Commerce Commission. Deleting this agency will
eliminate counterproductive and outdated economic regulation of
the railroad industry. The motor carrier industry has already
been relieved of unnecessary Government economic regulation
under the Trucking Interstate Regulatory Reform Act of 1994.
The Committee notes with approval that the administration
finally has echoed congressional leadership regarding the
sunset of the ICC, the oldest independent Federal regulatory
agency.
The House has appropriated $13,379,000 for the ICC and
included another $8,421,000 in a general provision (sec. 342),
for a total of $21,800,000. The House would provide $8,395,000
for first-quarter ICC salaries and expenses; $4,984,000 in
severance and closedown costs; and $8,421,000 in user fees to
cover other ICC expenses. The Committee notes that the Senate
authorizing committee has not yet reported any ICC termination
legislation to address which ICC functions will sunset and
which will continue at DOT, as well as how they will be
organized. In view of the fact that Congress appropriated
$30,302,000 in fiscal year 1995 to operate a fully functioning
ICC; this Committee firmly believes that $21,800,000 is an
excessive sum to close down this agency.
The bill as reported by the Committee has been scored by
the Congressional Budget Office with $13,379,000 in costs
associated with the termination of this agency.
The Committee has separately appropriated $4,705,000, as
requested by the administration, for the Department of
Transportation to assume any necessary functions of the ICC.
These funds are included within the Office of the Secretary,
under the head ``ICC Sunset.''
Payments for Directed Rail Service
(limitation on obligations)
Limitation, 1995........................................ ($475,000)
Budget estimate, 1996................................... (475,000)
House allowance......................................... (475,000)
Committee recommendation
(475,000)
Under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 11125, when a rail
carrier is in such financial trouble that it becomes impossible
to continue its operations, the Commission is empowered to
direct and pay another carrier to move that carrier's traffic
for a period of up to 60 days, which can be extended for an
additional 180 days if cause exists. In certain cases, the
Commission's use of this authority has not resulted in any cost
to the Federal Government. However, there have been several
instances where the use of this authority has resulted in a
liability for payment to an operating carrier by the Federal
Government.
The Committee provides an obligation limitation of $475,000
for fiscal year 1996, even though no additional directed rail
service is anticipated. In the event that such authority needs
to be exercised by the Commission, proper and timely
notification to Congress is required. The limitation is the
same as the House allowance.
PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION
The Panama Canal Commission is an agency of the executive
branch of the U.S. Government established by the Panama Canal
Act of 1979 (93 Stat. 452; 22 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.), to carry
out the responsibilities of the United States under the Panama
Canal Treaty of 1977. The authority of the President of the
United States with respect to the Commission is exercised
through the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army.
The Commission is supervised by a nine-member Board; five
members are nationals of the United States and four are
Panamanians. Board members who are U.S. nationals are appointed
with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Under the terms of the treaty, the Commission manages,
operates, and maintains the Canal, its complementary works,
installations, and equipment, and provides for the orderly
transit of vessels through the Canal. The Commission will
perform these functions until the treaty terminates on December
31, 1999, when the Republic of Panama will assume full
responsibility for the Canal.
Panama Canal Revolving Fund
(Administrative Expenses and Limitation on Operating and Capital
Expenses)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on
Administrative operating/
expenses capital
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1995................ ($50,030,000) ($540,000,000)
Budget estimate, 1996............... (50,741,000) ................
House allowance..................... (50,741,000) ................
Committee recommendation............ (50,741,000) ................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses.--The Committee recommends an
appropriation of $50,741,000, the same as the budget request
and the House allowance. This account encompasses the following
activities: executive direction, operations, financial
management, personnel administration, and employment costs of a
general nature which are not identifiable with other specific
activities. Included in the latter activity are such items as
reimbursement to the Department of Defense for education and
hospital services and the Commission's share of employee health
insurance premiums.
Operating and capital expenses.--The Panama Canal
Commission is a business enterprise which, by law, must operate
at no cost to the U.S. taxpayers. Toll revenues collected from
vessels transiting the Panama Canal and revenues from other
services are deposited into the Panama Canal revolving fund,
from which the Commission obtains its operating and capital
funds. The Committee concurs with the House action deleting
language limiting obligations for nonadministrative operating
expenses and capital projects. This is consistent with the
administration's budget request, and will obviate the future
need for the Commission to use emergency authority to access
internally generated operating expense funds or to request
supplemental funds above an artificial limitation on
obligations.
As outlined in the bill, a limitation of $46,000 is
provided for official reception and representation expenses, of
which (1) not more than $11,000 may be available to the
Supervisory Board of the Commission; (2) not more than $5,000
may be available for such expenses of the Secretary of the
Commission; and (3) not more than $30,000 may be available to
the Administrator of the Commission.
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Interest Payments
Appropriations, 1995.................................... $664,666,667
Budget estimate, 1996...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation
...........................
Early repayment of Federal share of interest payments.--
Through 1994, this account provided the annual Federal share
(two-thirds) of interest payments on outstanding WMATA bonds
sold in support of the rail construction program. The WMATA
bonds, which totaled $997,000,000, were guaranteed by the
Federal Government and were to become due beginning in the year
2012. In December 1993, the WMATA bonds were refinanced in
order to take advantage of lower interest rates. As part of
this refinancing, the Department of Transportation borrowed
$665,000,000 from the Federal Financing Bank [FFB] to pay off
the Federal two-thirds share of the original bonds.
In 1995, $665,000,000 was appropriated to repay the
principal owed by the Department of Transportation to the FFB.
No funds are, therefore, necessary for this payment.
TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS
The Committee concurs with the general provisions that
apply to the Department and agencies funded through this
legislation in fiscal year 1996 as approved by the House in
H.R. 2002, with the following deletions or changes. Other
changes are explained under the account or agency affected by
the general provision.
changes, deletions/replacements, new sections
Sec. 303. Technical change to include a reference to more
recently enacted legislation.
Sec. 311. Limits political appointees to 100 rather than
the 110 cited in the House bill.
Sec. 313. Deletes the House provision which prohibits the
use of funds for a safety advisory committee.
Sec. 327. Reduces the Department's working capital fund by
$5,000,000 rather than the $10,000,000 proposed by the House.
Sec. 330. Deletes the House provision which prohibits the
use of funds to prepare, propose, or promulgate any rule under
title V of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act
which prescribes corporate average fuel economy standards for
motor vehicles.
Sec. 335. Deletes the prohibition against including the
Maritime Administration when the $25,000,000 reduction for
personnel compensation and benefits associated with
streamlining and consolidation is applied. In addition, the
Committee directs the President to submit a DOT reorganization
plan to Congress when transmitting the budget request for
fiscal year 1997.
Sec. 336. Broadens the authority of the Secretary to
transfer funds to meet shortfalls in the ``Rental payments''
account.
Sec. 337. Deletes the House prohibition against certain
types of training. The Committee substitute allows only
training that is consistent with existing law (5 U.S.C. 4014).
Sec. 338. Deletes the House provision which allows the Hot
Springs, AR, airport to operate without regard to rent
diversion and rent maximization laws.
Sec. 339. Adds new subsection (c) which defines that time
spent on workers' compensation rolls should be counted as
regular employment time.
Sec. 340. Deletes House provision which prohibits the use
of funds to train citizens of the People's Republic of China.
Sec. 341. Deletes House provision which requires FTA
oversight of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
to be based in Washington, DC.
Sec. 342. Deletes House provision which provides funding
for the successor of the Interstate Commerce Commission. The
Committee has provided these funds under the Office of the
Secretary.
Sec. 343. Adds a new provision that allows the State of
Louisiana to transfer previously provided contract authority
from one project to another project within the State.
Sec. 344. Adds a provision clarifying the status of an
interstate maintenance project and a Federal lands project
funded with discretionary funds.
Sec. 345. Directs the Secretary of DOT, in concert with the
Secretary of Labor and the Administrator of EPA, to prepare a
report on telecommuting.
Sec. 346. Exempts the Indian Reservation roads program from
reduction in authorizations otherwise required by section
1003(c) of Public Law 102-240.
Sec. 347. Allows a State, at its option, to trade in
unobligated highway contract authority for new fiscal year 1996
contract authority that would otherwise be rescinded due to
section 1003(c) of Public Law 102-240.
Sec. 348. Allows a State, at its option, to trade in
unobligated highway demonstration project funds, either
contract authority or appropriations, to receive new authority
for fiscal year 1996.
Sec. 349. Adds a new section to chapter 3 of title 49 of
the United States Code which establishes interstate compact
infrastructure banks.
Sec. 350. Directs the Secretary of Transportation to
develop and implement a new personnel management system for the
Federal Aviation Administration.
Sec. 351. Directs the Secretary of Transportation to
develop and implement a new acquisition management system for
the Federal Aviation Administration.
Sec. 352. Technical amendment that clarifies the Secretary
of DOT's authority to cancel any part of a PFC except that
portion necessary to make payments for due debt service.
Sec. 353. Reduces the amount of funding allowed for bonuses
and cash awards to $25,875,075.
Sec. 354. Limits the amount of funding for expenses of
advisory committees to $850,000.
Sec. 355. Enables the Secretary of Transportation to
enforce and continue in effect the exemption provisions of the
Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act.
Sec. 356. Names the FAA Technical Center at the Atlantic
City International Airport the William J. Hughes Technical
Center.
Sec. 357. Prohibits outright closure of Coast Guard small
boat stations, but does allow the Secretary to implement
management efficiencies.
Sec. 358. Allows the State of Louisiana to transfer highway
funds from one project to another within the State.
Sec. 359. Amends Public Law 97-268 to transfer a small
parcel of Federal property to the city of Hoboken, NJ. This
public law, as enacted in 1982, provided for the transfer of a
much larger section of property to the city of Hoboken but
exempted this smaller parcel from transfer because of an
existing Federal need. This Federal need has terminated.
title iv
Secs. 401-405. Deletes all of title IV, known as the
National Capital Area Interest Arbitration Standards Act of
1995. This section provides for the adoption of mandatory
standards and procedures governing arbitrators and arbitration
of labor disputes in the National Capital area (Washington,
DC).
title v
Sec. 501. Deletes House provision restricting the use of
funds for the Miller Highway in New York City, NY.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports on
general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment
to the House bill ``which proposes an item of appropriation
which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing
law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously
passed by the Senate during that session.''
Office of the Secretary:
ICC Sunset.......................................... $4,705,000
State infrastructure banks.......................... 250,000,000
Coast Guard:
Operating expenses...................................... 2,286,000,000
Acquisition, construction and improvements.......... 366,800,000
Environmental compliance and restoration............ 21,000,000
Port safety development............................. 15,000,000
Research, development, testing and evaluation....... 20,000,000
Federal Aviation Administration: Office of commercial
space............................................... 5,770,000
Federal Highway Administration:
State Route 2, West Virginia........................ 9,050,000
6th/7th St., Brownsville, TX........................ 500,000
Des Moines to Ottumwa, IA........................... 6,450,000
I-70/610 Interchange, Louisiana..................... 5,000,000
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: Motor
vehicle safety...................................... 121,605,000
Federal Railroad Administration:
Alaska Railroad..................................... 10,000,000
Rhode Island Railroad............................... 2,000,000
Grants to the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation....................................... 605,000,000
Northeast corridor improvement project.............. 130,000,000
Research and Special Programs Administration:
Gas pipeline safety program and hazardous liquid
pipeline safety program........................... 18,275,000
Pipeline safety grants.............................. 12,000,000
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, the accompanying
bill was ordered reported from the Committee, subject to
amendment and subject to the subcommittee allocation, by
recorded vote of 28-0, a quorum being present.
Yeas Nays
Chairman Hatfield
Mr. Stevens
Mr. Cochran
Mr. Specter
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Gramm
Mr. Bond
Mr. Gorton
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Mack
Mr. Burns
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Jeffords
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Hollings
Mr. Johnston
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Bumpers
Mr. Lautenberg
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Reid
Mr. Kerrey
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
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.
Section 201 of the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 181) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``As used in this title, the term `foreign commerce'
includes flight operations (excluding ground operations
performed by persons other than flight crew members)
conducted in whole or in part outside the United States
(as defined by section 40102(a)(41) of title 49, United
States Code) by an air carrier (as defined by section
40102(a)(2) of such title).''.
employee
Section 202 of such Act (45 U.S.C. 182) is amended
by adding at the end the following: ``As used in this
title, the term `employee' also includes flight crew
members employed by an air carrier (as defined by
section 40102(a)(2) of title 49, United States Code)
while such flight crew members perform work in whole or
in part outside the United States (as defined by section
40102(a)(41) of such title).''.
Chapter 3 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by
the addition of the following new section:
``Sec. 334. Interstate Compact Infrastructure
Banks.--(a) Consent to Interstate Compacts.--In order to
increase public investment, attract needed private
investment, and promote an intermodal transportation
network, Congress grants consent to the States to enter
into interstate compacts establishing transportation
infrastructure banks to promote regional or multi-State
investment in transportation infrastructure and thereby
improve economic productivity.
``(b) Assistance for Transportation Projects,
Programs, and Activities.--An Interstate Compact
Transportation Infrastructure Bank (Infrastructure Bank)
established under this section may make loans, issue
debt under the authority of the Infrastructure Bank's
State jurisdictions either jointly or separately as the
Infrastructure Bank and its jurisdictions determine, and
provide other assistance to public or private entities
constructing, or proposing to construct or initiate,
transportation projects, programs, or activities that
are eligible to receive financial assistance under--
``(1) title 23, United States Code, and the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
of 1991; and
``(2) chapters 53 and 221 and subtitle VII,
part B, of this title.
``(c) Forms of Assistance.--An Infrastructure Bank
may loan or provide other assistance to a public or
private entity in an amount equal to all or part of the
cost of construction or capital cost of a qualifying
project. The amount of any loan or other assistance
received for a qualifying project under this section may
be subordinated to any other debt financing for the
project. For purposes of this subsection, the term
`other assistance' includes any use of funds for the
purpose of credit enhancements, use as a capital reserve
for bond or debt instrument financing, bond or debt
instrument financing issuance costs, bond or debt
issuance financing insurance, subsidizing of interest
rates, letters of credit, credit instruments, bond or
debt financing instrument security, other forms of debt
financing that relate to the qualifying project, and
other leveraging tools approved by the Secretary.
``(d) Interstate Compact Transportation
Infrastructure Bank Requirements.--In order to qualify
an Interstate Compact Transportation Infrastructure Bank
for capitalization grants under this section, each
participating State shall--
``(1) deposit into the Infrastructure Bank,
from non-Federal or Federal sources other than
this title or title 23, United States Code, an
amount equal to 25 percent of each
capitalization grant or, if lower because of the
proportion of Federal lands in the State, the
proportional non-Federal share that a State
would otherwise pay on the basis of section
120(b) of title 23;
``(2) ensure that the Infrastructure Bank
maintains on a continuing basis an investment
grade rating on its debt issuances or has a
sufficient level of bond or debt financing
instrument insurance to maintain the viability
of the fund;
``(3) ensure that investment income generated
by the funds deposited into an Infrastructure
Bank shall be--
``(A) credited to the Infrastructure
Bank;
``(B) available for use in providing
loans and other assistance to qualifying
projects, programs, or activities from
the Infrastructure Bank; and
``(C) invested in U.S. Treasury
securities, bank deposits, or such other
financing instruments as the Secretary
may provide to earn interest to enhance
the leveraging of qualifying
transportation activities;
``(4) provide that the repayment of a loan or
other assistance to a State from any loan under
this section may be credited to the
Infrastructure Bank or obligated for any purpose
for which the loaned funds were available under
this title or title 23;
``(5) ensure that any loan from an
Infrastructure Bank shall bear any positive
interest the Bank determines appropriate to make
the qualifying project feasible;
``(6) ensure that repayment of any loan from
an Infrastructure Bank shall commence not later
than five years after the facility has opened to
traffic or the project, activity or facility has
been completed;
``(7) ensure that the term for repaying any
loan shall not exceed 30 years from the date of
obligation of the loan;
``(8) limit any assignment, transfer, or loan
to an Infrastructure Bank to not more than the
amount which a State is entitled to under
subsection (f) of this section; and
``(9) require the Infrastructure Bank to make
an annual report to the Secretary on its status
no later than September 30 of each year.
``(e) Secretarial Requirements.--In administering
this section, the Secretary shall--
``(1) ensure that federal disbursements for
capital reserves shall be at a rate consistent
with historic rates for the Federal-aid highway
program; and
``(2) specify procedures and guidelines for
establishing, operating, and making loans from
an Infrastructure Bank.
``(f) Authorization of Appropriations; Contributions
From Title 23 Apportionments.--(1) There are authorized
to be appropriated from the Airport and Airway Trust
Fund established under section 9502 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 9502) to carry out this
section not more than $250,000,000 in Fiscal Year 1996.
``(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of title 23,
United States Code, and Public Law 102-240 (Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991), a State
may contribute to an Infrastructure Bank up to ----
percent of federal funds apportioned under section 104--
------ of title 23 that are subject to the annual
Federal-aid Highways obligation limitation.
``(3) A state may disburse funds appropriated under
paragraph (f)(1) of this subsection or contributed under
(f)(2) of this subsection to an Infrastructure Bank at a
rate that does not exceed the traditional rate of
disbursement for the Airport Improvement Program or the
Federal-aid Highway program, respectively.
``(g) State Allocation.--The Secretary shall
apportion to the chief executive of each State choosing
to participate in an Infrastructure Bank the percentage
allocation of the amount available under paragraph
(e)(1) of this section on the first day of the fiscal
year, as follows:
``State Percentage
``Alabama..................................................... 1.26
``Alaska...................................................... 5.64
``Arizona..................................................... 2.20
``Arkansas.................................................... 0.74
``California.................................................. 8.57
``Colorado.................................................... 2.31
``Connecticut................................................. 0.74
``Delaware.................................................... 0.04
``District of Columbia........................................ 0.01
``Florida..................................................... 6.49
``Georgia..................................................... 3.08
``Hawaii...................................................... 2.54
``Idaho....................................................... 0.75
``Illinois.................................................... 3.92
``Indiana..................................................... 1.46
``Iowa........................................................ 0.95
``Kansas...................................................... 0.68
``Kentucky.................................................... 1.80
``Louisiana................................................... 1.34
``Maine....................................................... 0.66
``Maryland.................................................... 0.84
``Massachusetts............................................... 1.72
``Michigan.................................................... 2.68
``Minnesota................................................... 1.59
``Mississippi................................................. 0.76
``Missouri.................................................... 1.92
``Montana..................................................... 1.10
``Nebraska.................................................... 0.87
``Nevada...................................................... 1.46
``New Hampshire............................................... 0.28
``New Jersey.................................................. 1.16
``New Mexico.................................................. 0.98
``New York.................................................... 5.82
``North Carolina.............................................. 2.92
``North Dakota................................................ 0.61
``Ohio........................................................ 2.32
``Oklahoma.................................................... 0.97
``Oregon...................................................... 1.15
``Pennsylvania................................................ 3.29
``Rhode Island................................................ 0.39
``South Carolina.............................................. 1.05
``South Dakota................................................ 0.55
``Tennessee................................................... 2.13
``Texas....................................................... 7.64
``Utah........................................................ 1.04
``Vermont..................................................... 0.22
``Virginia.................................................... 2.91
``Washington.................................................. 1.78
``West Virginia............................................... 0.58
``Wisconsin................................................... 1.41
``Wyoming..................................................... 0.74
``Puerto Rico................................................. 0.99
``(g) United States Not Obligated.--The deposit of
Federal apportionments into an Infrastructure Bank shall
not be construed as a commitment, guarantee, or
obligation on the part of the United States to any third
party, nor shall any third party have any right against
the United States for payment solely by virtue of the
deposit. Furthermore, any security or debt financing
instrument issued by an Infrastructure Bank shall
expressly state that the security or instrument does not
constitute a commitment, guarantee, or obligation of the
United States.
``(h) Management of Federal Funds.--Sections 3335
and 6503 of title 31, United States Code, shall not
apply to funds used as a capital reserve under this
section.
``(i) Program Administration.--For each fiscal year,
a State may contribute to an Infrastructure Bank an
amount not to exceed two percent of the Federal funds
deposited into that Infrastructure Bank by the State to
provide for the reasonable costs of administering the
fund.''.
(b) Rescission of Contract Authorization.--Of the
available contract authority balances under the account
entitled ``Grants-In-Aid for Airports'' in this Act,
$250,000,000 are rescinded.
Section 40117(c) of title 49, United States Code is amended
by adding a new paragraph that allows for an increase of
airport passenger facility charges.
Sec. 352. Passenger Facility Fees.--(a) Section
40117(b)(2) of title 49, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``(2)'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``(3)'';
(b) Section 40117(b)(3) of title 49, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``(3)'' and inserting in
lieu thereof ``(4)'';
(c) Section 40117(b) of title 49, United States
Code, is amended by adding a new paragraph (2) as
follows:
``(2) Provided that an eligible agency with
authority to impose a passenger facility fee
submits to the Secretary and all relevant air
carriers a written notice of its intention to
adjust its passenger facility fee in accordance
with paragraphs (A) and (B) below no less than
120 days before the effective date of such an
increase, the eligible agency may, subject to
regulations the Secretary shall prescribe:
``(A) increase the passenger facility
fee it has the authority to impose
pursuant to its approved application by
no more than $2.00 for the purpose of
financing an eligible airport-related
project covered under this section,
including any such project identified in
the agency's approved application; and/
or
``(B) adjust, on an annual basis, the
amount of the passenger facility fee
indicated in the agency's approved
application and any adjustment to the
fee made in accordance with paragraph
(A) above by the Consumer Price Index
for each respective year to finance any
increase in the costs of constructing an
eligible airport-related project covered
under this section, including any
increase in the costs of constructing
any such project identified in the
agency's approved application;
``(C) if the Secretary determines,
before the effective date of a passenger
facility fee adjustment pursuant to
paragraphs (A) or (B) above, that the
passenger facility revenues derived from
such an adjustment are to finance a
project not covered within the meaning
of this section, the Secretary shall
notify the agency that it is prohibited
from effectuating, either in whole or
part, any such adjustment.''
Federal aviation law regarding passenger facility charges,
section 40117 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by
striking the second sentence in paragraph (2) and inserting new
text.
(2) The Secretary periodically shall audit and review
the use by an eligible agency of passenger facility
revenue. [After review and a public hearing, the
Secretary may end any part of the authority of the
agency to impose a passenger facility fee to the extent
the Secretary decides that the revenue is not being
used as provided in this section.] After review and a
public hearing, the Secretary may end any part of the
authority of the agency to impose a passenger facility
fee, except for that portion necessary to make payments
for debt service due by the agency on indebtedness
incurred to carry out an eligible airport-related
project.
Public Law 97-268 is amended to transfer a small parcel of
Federal property to the city of Hoboken, NJ. This public law,
as enacted in 1982, provided for the transfer of a much larger
section of property to the city of Hoboken but exempted this
smaller parcel from transfer because of an existing Federal
need. This Federal need has terminated.
(a) the property transferred to the Department of the
Treasury by the Second Deficiency Act, fiscal year 1929, and
(b) the property excluded by the second paragraph of
section 1 of the Act of April 19, 1930 (46 [Stat. 220), and
(c) the property beginning at a point in the easterly line
of River Street, distant 10 feet southerly from the
intersection formed by the northerly line of Second Street,
extended with the easterly line of River Street, running
thence; north 13 degrees 04 minutes east and along the easterly
line of River Street, a distance of 250.20 feet to a point,
thence south 76 degrees 56 minutes east a distance of 108 feet
to a point, thence south 13 degrees 04 minutes west and
parallel to River Street a distance of 154.62 feet to a point
of curvature, thence on a curve to the right having a radius of
256 feet and an arc distance of 97.95 feet to a point, then
north 76 degrees 56 minutes west and parallel to the second
course a distance of 89.49 feet to a point in the easterly line
of River Street, said point being the point or place of
beginning. Said parcel lying in a city block 231 and being a
part of lot 3 as shown on the official assessment map of the
city of Hoboken, Hudson County, New Jersey, concurrent with]
Stat. 220); concurrent with a transfer of title to said real
property, the city of Hoboken, New Jersey shall agree to assume
sole responsibility with respect to said property and to
indemnify and hold harmless the United States against any
obligation, past, present, or future, with respect to said
property.
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 for
1996: Subcommittee
on Transportation
and Related
Agencies:
Defense
discretionary.. ........... ........... ........... ...........
Nondefense
discretionary.. 12,400 12,399 36,561 \1\ 36,561
Violent crime
reduction fund. ........... ........... ........... ...........
Mandatory....... 584 582 581 \1\ 581
Projections of
outlays associated
with the
recommendation:
1996............ ........... ........... ........... \2\ 11,706
1997............ ........... ........... ........... 13,606
1998............ ........... ........... ........... 5,312
1999............ ........... ........... ........... 2,211
2000 and future
year........... ........... ........... ........... 2,100
Financial assistance
to State and local
governments for
1996 in bill....... NA 1,299 NA 3,536
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 1995 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Committee recommendation compared with (+ or -)
Item 1995appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committeerecommendation -----------------------------------------------------------
1995appropriation Budget estimate House allowance
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
Salaries and expenses.......................... $58,094,000 $57,459,000 $55,011,500 $56,500,000 -$1,594,000 -$959,000 +$1,488,500
Immediate Office of the Secretary.......... (1,220,000) .................. .................. ....................... (-1,220,000) .................. ..................
Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary... (583,000) .................. .................. ....................... (-583,000) .................. ..................
Office of the General Counsel.............. (7,876,000) .................. .................. ....................... (-7,876,000) .................. ..................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Transportation Policy..................... (2,309,000) .................. .................. ....................... (-2,309,000) .................. ..................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Aviation and International Affairs........ (7,887,000) .................. .................. ....................... (-7,887,000) .................. ..................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Budget and Programs....................... (4,400,000) .................. .................. ....................... (-4,400,000) .................. ..................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Governmental Affairs...................... (2,250,000) .................. .................. ....................... (-2,250,000) .................. ..................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Administration............................ (22,425,000) .................. .................. ....................... (-22,425,000) .................. ..................
Office of Public Affairs................... (1,380,000) .................. .................. ....................... (-1,380,000) .................. ..................
Executive Secretariat...................... (932,000) .................. .................. ....................... (-932,000) .................. ..................
Contract Appeals Board..................... (630,000) .................. .................. ....................... (-630,000) .................. ..................
Office of Civil Rights..................... (1,779,000) .................. .................. ....................... (-1,779,000) .................. ..................
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business
Utilization............................... (936,000) .................. .................. ....................... (-936,000) .................. ..................
Minority Business Resource Center.......... (4,000,000) .................. .................. ....................... (-4,000,000) .................. ..................
Office of Intelligence and Security........ (800,000) .................. .................. ....................... (-800,000) .................. ..................
Office of Intermodalism.................... (1,000,000) .................. .................. ....................... (-1,000,000) .................. ..................
Undistributed.............................. (-2,313,000) .................. .................. ....................... (+2,313,000) .................. ..................
Office of Civil Rights......................... .................. 12,793,000 6,554,000 12,083,000 +12,083,000 -710,000 +5,529,000
Transportation planning, research, and
development................................... 8,293,000 15,710,000 3,309,000 9,710,000 +1,417,000 -6,000,000 +6,401,000
Office of Commercial Space Transportation:
Operations and Research....................... 6,060,000 .................. .................. ....................... -6,060,000 .................. ..................
Working capital fund........................... (93,000,000) (104,364,000) (102,231,000) (104,364,000) (+11,364,000) .................. (+2,133,000)
Payments to air carriers (Airport and Airway
Trust Fund):
(Liquidation of contract authorization).... (33,423,000) .................. (15,000,000) (26,738,536) (-6,684,464) (+26,738,536) (+11,738,536)
(Limitation on obligations)................ (33,423,000) .................. (15,000,000) (26,738,536) (-6,684,464) (+26,738,536) (+11,738,536)
Rescission of contract authority........... (-4,000,000) (-38,600,000) (-23,600,000) (-11,861,464) (-7,861,464) (+26,738,536) (+11,738,536)
Rescission................................. .................. (-6,786,971) (-6,786,971) (-6,786,971) (-6,786,971) .................. ..................
Rental payments................................ 144,419,000 143,436,000 130,803,000 139,689,000 -4,730,000 -3,747,000 +8,886,000
Headquarters facilities........................ .................. 331,000,000 .................. ....................... .................. -331,000,000 ..................
Minority business resource center program...... 1,900,000 1,900,000 1,900,000 1,900,000 .................. .................. ..................
(Limitation on direct loans)............... (15,000,000) (15,000,000) (15,000,000) (15,000,000) .................. .................. ..................
Minority business outreach..................... .................. 2,900,000 2,900,000 2,100,000 +2,100,000 -800,000 -800,000
ICC Sunset..................................... .................. 4,705,000 .................. 4,705,000 +4,705,000 .................. +4,705,000
State Infrastructure Banks..................... .................. .................. .................. 250,000,000 +250,000,000 +250,000,000 +250,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Office of the Secretary........... 218,766,000 569,903,000 200,477,500 476,687,000 +257,921,000 -93,216,000 +276,209,500
(Limitations on obligations)......... (33,423,000) .................. (15,000,000) (26,738,536) (-6,684,464) (+26,738,536) (+11,738,536)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources.......... (252,189,000) (569,903,000) (215,477,500) (503,425,536) (+251,236,536) (-66,477,464) (+287,948,036)
================================================================================================================================================
Coast Guard
Operating expenses............................. 2,598,000,000 2,618,316,000 2,565,607,000 2,286,000,000 -312,000,000 -332,316,000 -279,607,000
Acquisition, construction, and improvements:
Vessels.................................... 187,900,000 203,700,000 191,200,000 178,000,000 -9,900,000 -25,700,000 -13,200,000
Aircraft................................... 11,800,000 19,500,000 16,500,000 14,500,000 +2,700,000 -5,000,000 -2,000,000
Other equipment............................ 29,700,000 56,300,000 42,200,000 47,600,000 +17,900,000 -8,700,000 +5,400,000
Shore facilities and aids to navigation.... 89,350,000 99,800,000 82,275,000 80,200,000 -9,150,000 -19,600,000 -2,075,000
Personnel and related support.............. 44,200,000 48,900,000 43,000,000 46,500,000 +2,300,000 -2,400,000 +3,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, AC&I........................... 362,950,000 428,200,000 375,175,000 366,800,000 +3,850,000 -61,400,000 -8,375,000
Environmental compliance and restoration....... 23,500,000 25,000,000 21,000,000 21,000,000 -2,500,000 -4,000,000 ..................
Port Safety Development........................ .................. .................. .................. 15,000,000 +15,000,000 +15,000,000 +15,000,000
Alteration of bridges.......................... .................. 2,000,000 16,000,000 2,000,000 +2,000,000 .................. -14,000,000
Retired pay.................................... 562,585,000 582,022,000 582,022,000 582,022,000 +19,437,000 .................. ..................
Reserve training............................... 64,981,000 64,859,000 61,859,000 62,000,000 -2,981,000 -2,859,000 +141,000
Research, development, test, and evaluation.... 20,310,000 22,500,000 18,500,000 20,000,000 -310,000 -2,500,000 +1,500,000
Boat safety (Aquatic Resources Trust Fund)..... 25,000,000 .................. 20,000,000 ....................... -25,000,000 .................. -20,000,000
Emergency Fund (Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund)
(limitation of permanent appropriation)....... .................. .................. (3,000,000) ....................... .................. .................. (-3,000,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Coast Guard....................... 3,657,326,000 3,742,897,000 3,660,163,000 3,354,822,000 -302,504,000 -388,075,000 -305,341,000
================================================================================================================================================
Federal Aviation Administration
Operations..................................... 4,595,394,000 4,704,000,000 4,600,000,000 4,550,000,000 -45,394,000 -154,000,000 -50,000,000
Facilities and equipment (Airport and Airway
Trust Fund)................................... 2,087,489,000 1,917,847,000 2,000,000,000 1,890,377,000 -197,112,000 -27,470,000 -109,623,000
Rescission................................. (-35,000,000) .................. (-60,000,000) (-70,000,000) (-35,000,000) (-70,000,000) (-10,000,000)
Research, engineering, and development (Airport
and Airway Trust Fund)........................ 259,192,000 267,661,000 143,000,000 215,886,000 -43,306,000 -51,775,000 +72,886,000
Grants-in-aid for airports (Airport and Airway
Trust Fund):
(Liquidation of contract authorization).... (1,500,000,000) (1,500,000,000) (1,500,000,000) (1,500,000,000) .................. .................. ..................
(Limitation on obligations)................ (1,450,000,000) (1,500,000,000) (1,600,000,000) (1,250,000,000) (-200,000,000) (-250,000,000) (-350,000,000)
Rescission of contract authority........... .................. .................. .................. -255,000,000 -255,000,000 -255,000,000 -255,000,000
Aircraft purchase loan guarantee program....... 148,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 -98,000 .................. ..................
(Limitation on borrowing authority)........ (9,970,000) (1,600,000) (1,600,000) (1,600,000) (-8,370,000) .................. ..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Aviation Administration... 6,942,223,000 6,889,558,000 6,743,050,000 6,656,313,000 -285,910,000 -233,245,000 -86,737,000
(Limitations on obligations)......... (1,450,000,000) (1,500,000,000) (1,600,000,000) (1,250,000,000) (-200,000,000) (-250,000,000) (-350,000,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources.......... (8,392,223,000) (8,389,558,000) (8,343,050,000) (7,906,313,000) (-485,910,000) (-483,245,000) (-436,737,000)
Unified transportation infrastructure
investment program (limitation on obligations) .................. (-1,500,000,000) .................. ....................... .................. (+1,500,000,000) ..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources................ (8,392,223,000) (6,889,558,000) (8,343,050,000) (7,906,313,000) (-485,910,000) (+1,016,755,000) (-436,737,000)
================================================================================================================================================
Federal Highway Administration
Limitation on general operating expenses....... (525,341,000) (689,486,000) (495,381,000) (548,434,000) (+23,093,000) (-141,052,000) (+53,053,000)
Highway-related safety grants (Highway Trust
Fund):
(Liquidation of contract authorization).... (10,800,000) (10,000,000) (10,000,000) (13,000,000) (+2,200,000) (+3,000,000) (+3,000,000)
(Limitation on obligations)................ (10,800,000) (10,000,000) (10,000,000) (13,000,000) (+2,200,000) (+3,000,000) (+3,000,000)
Rescission of contract authority........... (-20,000,000) .................. .................. ....................... (+20,000,000) .................. ..................
Federal-aid highways (Highway Trust Fund):
(Limitation on obligations)................ (17,160,000,000) (20,254,255,000) (18,000,000,000) (17,000,000,000) (-160,000,000) (-3,254,255,000) (-1,000,000,000)
(Exempt obligations)....................... (2,267,701,000) (80,000,000) (2,311,932,000) (2,331,507,000) (+63,806,000) (+2,251,507,000) (+19,575,000)
(Liquidation of contract authorization).... (17,000,000,000) (19,200,000,000) (19,200,000,000) (19,200,000,000) (+2,200,000,000) .................. ..................
Right-of-way revolving fund (Highway Trust
Fund) (limitation on direct loans)............ (42,500,000) .................. .................. ....................... (-42,500,000) .................. ..................
Motor carrier safety grants (Highway Trust
Fund):
(Liquidation of contract authorization).... (73,000,000) (68,000,000) (68,000,000) (68,000,000) (-5,000,000) .................. ..................
(Limitation on obligations)................ (74,000,000) (85,000,000) (79,150,000) (75,000,000) (+1,000,000) (-10,000,000) (-4,150,000)
Surface transportation projects................ 352,055,000 .................. .................. 39,500,000 -312,555,000 +39,500,000 +39,500,000
Rescission................................. (-12,004,000) .................. .................. ....................... (+12,004,000) .................. ..................
High priority corridor (sec. 314A)............. 6,000,000 .................. .................. ....................... -6,000,000 .................. ..................
Orange County, CA toll road project (sec. 336a) 8,000,000 .................. .................. ....................... -8,000,000 .................. ..................
Rescission of contract authority........... .................. .................. .................. ....................... .................. .................. ..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Highway Administration.... 366,055,000 .................. .................. 39,500,000 -326,555,000 +39,500,000 +39,500,000
(Limitations on obligations)......... (17,244,800,000) (20,349,255,000) (18,089,150,000) (17,088,000,000) (-156,800,000) (-3,261,255,000) (-1,001,150,000)
(Exempt obligations)................. (2,267,701,000) (80,000,000) (2,311,932,000) (2,331,507,000) (+63,806,000) (+2,251,507,000) (+19,575,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources.......... (19,878,556,000) (20,429,255,000) (20,401,082,000) (19,459,007,000) (-419,549,000) (-970,248,000) (-942,075,000)
Unified transportation infrastructure
investment program (limitation on obligations) .................. (-20,134,255,000) .................. ....................... .................. (+20,134,255,000) ..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources................ (19,878,556,000) (295,000,000) (20,401,082,000) (19,459,007,000) (-419,549,000) (+19,164,007,000) (-942,075,000)
================================================================================================================================================
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Operations and research........................ 79,556,000 84,598,000 73,316,570 71,261,000 -8,295,000 -13,337,000 -2,055,570
Rescissions................................ .................. .................. (-4,547,185) ....................... .................. .................. (+4,547,185)
Operations and research (Highway Trust Fund)... 46,997,000 59,744,000 52,011,930 50,344,000 +3,347,000 -9,400,000 -1,667,930
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operations and research........ 126,553,000 144,342,000 125,328,500 121,605,000 -4,948,000 -22,737,000 -3,723,500
Highway traffic safety grants (Highway Trust
Fund):
(Liquidation of contract authorization).... (151,000,000) (180,000,000) (153,400,000) (155,100,000) (+4,100,000) (-24,900,000) (+1,700,000)
State and community highway safety grants
(Sec. 402) (limitation on obligations).... (123,000,000) (168,600,000) (126,000,000) (128,000,000) (+5,000,000) (-40,600,000) (+2,000,000)
National Driver Register (Sec. 402)
(limitation on obligations)............... (3,400,000) (2,400,000) (2,400,000) (2,100,000) (-1,300,000) (-300,000) (-300,000)
Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures
programs (Sec. 410) (limitation on
obligations).............................. (25,000,000) (25,000,000) (25,000,000) (25,000,000) .................. .................. ..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration........................ 126,553,000 144,342,000 125,328,500 121,605,000 -4,948,000 -22,737,000 -3,723,500
(Limitations on obligations)....... (151,400,000) (196,000,000) (153,400,000) (155,100,000) (+3,700,000) (-40,900,000) (+1,700,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources........ (277,953,000) (340,342,000) (278,728,500) (276,705,000) (-1,248,000) (-63,637,000) (-2,023,500)
================================================================================================================================================
Federal Railroad Administration
Office of the Administrator.................... 13,090,000 17,370,000 14,000,000 14,018,000 +928,000 -3,352,000 +18,000
Local rail freight assistance.................. 17,000,000 .................. .................. ....................... -17,000,000 .................. ..................
Rescission................................. (-6,563,000) .................. .................. ....................... (+6,563,000) .................. ..................
Railroad safety................................ 47,729,000 51,104,000 49,940,660 49,105,000 +1,376,000 -1,999,000 -835,660
Railroad research and development.............. 20,500,000 48,947,000 21,000,000 25,775,000 +5,275,000 -23,172,000 +4,775,000
Northeast corridor improvement program......... 200,000,000 235,000,000 100,000,000 130,000,000 -70,000,000 -105,000,000 +30,000,000
Next generation high speed rail................ 20,000,000 30,000,000 10,000,000 20,000,000 .................. -10,000,000 +10,000,000
Trust fund share of next generation high speed
rail (Highway Trust Fund):
(Liquidation of contract authorization).... (3,400,000) (7,118,000) (5,000,000) (5,000,000) (+1,600,000) (-2,118,000) ..................
(Limitation on obligations)................ (5,000,000) (5,000,000) (5,000,000) (5,000,000) .................. .................. ..................
Alaska Railroad rehabilitation................. .................. .................. .................. 10,000,000 +10,000,000 +10,000,000 +10,000,000
Pennsylvania station redevelopment project..... 40,000,000 50,000,000 .................. 25,000,000 -15,000,000 -25,000,000 +25,000,000
Rescission................................. (-40,000,000) .................. .................. ....................... (+40,000,000) .................. ..................
Rhode Island Rail Development.................. 5,000,000 10,000,000 .................. 2,000,000 -3,000,000 -8,000,000 +2,000,000
Grants to the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation:
Operations................................. 542,000,000 420,000,000 336,000,000 305,000,000 -237,000,000 -115,000,000 -31,000,000
Transition costs....................... .................. .................. 62,000,000 100,000,000 +100,000,000 +100,000,000 +38,000,000
Capital.................................... 230,000,000 230,000,000 230,000,000 200,000,000 -30,000,000 -30,000,000 -30,000,000
Supplemental........................... 21,500,000 .................. .................. ....................... -21,500,000 .................. ..................
Long-term restructuring transition......... .................. 100,000,000 .................. ....................... .................. -100,000,000 ..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Grants to the National Railroad
Passenger Corporation................... 793,500,000 750,000,000 628,000,000 605,000,000 -188,500,000 -145,000,000 -23,000,000
================================================================================================================================================
Total, Federal Railroad Administration... 1,156,819,000 1,192,421,000 822,940,660 880,898,000 -275,921,000 -311,523,000 +57,957,340
(Limitations on obligations)......... (5,000,000) (5,000,000) (5,000,000) (5,000,000) .................. .................. ..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources.......... (1,161,819,000) (1,197,421,000) (827,940,660) (885,898,000) (-275,921,000) (-311,523,000) (+57,957,340)
Unified transportation infrastructure invest
program....................................... .................. -1,045,000,000 .................. ....................... .................. +1,045,000,000 ..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources................ (1,161,819,000) (152,421,000) (827,940,660) (885,898,000) (-275,921,000) (+733,477,000) (+57,957,340)
================================================================================================================================================
Federal Transit Administration
Administrative expenses........................ 43,060,000 44,202,000 39,260,000 42,000,000 -1,060,000 -2,202,000 +2,740,000
Formula grants................................. 640,000,000 1,244,200,000 490,000,000 585,000,000 -55,000,000 -659,200,000 +95,000,000
Operating assistance grants................ 710,000,000 500,000,000 400,000,000 400,000,000 -310,000,000 -100,000,000 ..................
Formula grants (Highway Trust Fund) (limitation
on obligations)............................... (1,150,000,000) (1,120,850,000) (1,110,000,000) (1,120,850,000) (-29,150,000) .................. (+10,850,000)
University transportation centers.............. 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 .................. .................. ..................
Transit planning and research.................. 92,250,000 100,027,000 82,250,000 90,000,000 -2,250,000 -10,027,000 +7,750,000
Metropolitan planning program.............. .................. (41,512,500) (39,436,250) (40,500,000) (+40,500,000) (-1,012,500) (+1,063,750)
Rural transit assistance program........... .................. (4,612,500) (4,381,250) (4,500,000) (+4,500,000) (-112,500) (+118,750)
Transit cooperative research program....... .................. (8,475,000) (8,051,250) (8,250,000) (+8,250,000) (-225,000) (+198,750)
National TPR program....................... .................. (33,952,000) (19,480,000) (25,500,000) (+25,500,000) (-8,452,000) (+6,020,000)
State TPR program.......................... .................. (8,475,000) (8,051,250) (8,250,000) (+8,250,000) (-225,000) (+198,750)
National transit institute................. .................. (3,000,000) (2,850,000) (3,000,000) (+3,000,000) .................. (+150,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Transit planning and research.. (92,250,000) (100,027,000) (82,250,000) (90,000,000) (-2,250,000) (-10,027,000) (+7,750,000)
Trust fund share of expenses (Highway Trust
Fund) (liquidation of contract authorization). (1,150,000,000) (1,120,850,000) (1,120,850,000) (1,120,850,000) (-29,150,000) .................. ..................
Discretionary grants........................... .................. 59,944,000 .................. ....................... .................. -59,944,000 ..................
Discretionary grants (Highway Trust Fund)
(limitation on obligations):
Fixed guideway modernization............... (725,000,000) (724,976,000) (666,000,000) (666,000,000) (-59,000,000) (-58,976,000) ..................
Bus and bus-related facilities............. (353,330,000) (274,992,000) (333,000,000) (333,000,000) (-20,330,000) (+58,008,000) ..................
New starts................................. (646,670,000) (724,976,000) (666,000,000) (666,000,000) (+19,330,000) (-58,976,000) ..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Discretionary grants........... (1,725,000,000) (1,724,944,000) (1,665,000,000) (1,665,000,000) (-60,000,000) (-59,944,000) ..................
Mass transit capital fund (Highway Trust Fund)
(liquidation of contract authorization)....... (1,500,000,000) (1,700,000,000) (2,000,000,000) (1,700,000,000) (+200,000,000) .................. (-300,000,000)
Interstate transfer grants--transit............ 48,030,000 .................. .................. ....................... -48,030,000 .................. ..................
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. 200,000,000 200,000,000 200,000,000 170,000,000 -30,000,000 -30,000,000 -30,000,000
Violent crime reduction program (Violent Crime
Trust Fund)................................... .................. 5,000,000 .................. ....................... .................. -5,000,000 ..................
================================================================================================================================================
Total, Federal Transit Administration.... 1,739,340,000 2,159,373,000 1,217,510,000 1,293,000,000 -446,340,000 -866,373,000 +75,490,000
(Limitations on obligations)......... (2,875,000,000) (2,845,794,000) (2,775,000,000) (2,785,850,000) (-89,150,000) (-59,944,000) (+10,850,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources.......... (4,614,340,000) (5,005,167,000) (3,992,510,000) (4,078,850,000) (-535,490,000) (-926,317,000) (+86,340,000)
Unified transportation infrastructure invest
program....................................... .................. -2,154,373,000 .................. ....................... .................. +2,154,373,000 ..................
(Limitation on obligations)................ .................. (-2,785,850,000) .................. ....................... .................. (+2,785,850,000) ..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources................ (4,614,340,000) (64,944,000) (3,992,510,000) (4,078,850,000) (-535,490,000) (+4,013,906,000) (+86,340,000)
================================================================================================================================================
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
Operations and maintenance (Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund)................................... 10,251,000 10,243,000 10,190,500 10,150,000 -101,000 -93,000 -40,500
Research and Special Programs Administration
Research and special programs.................. 26,238,000 31,662,000 26,030,000 24,281,000 -1,957,000 -7,381,000 -1,749,000
Hazardous materials safety................. (12,897,000) (12,782,000) (12,600,000) (12,987,000) (+90,000) (+205,000) (+387,000)
Aviation information management............ (2,453,000) (2,282,000) (2,322,000) ....................... (-2,453,000) (-2,282,000) (-2,322,000)
Emergency transportation................... (1,326,000) (1,301,000) (1,086,000) (962,000) (-364,000) (-339,000) (-124,000)
Research and technology.................... (2,530,000) (7,604,000) (3,209,000) (3,451,000) (+921,000) (-4,153,000) (+242,000)
Program and administrative support......... (7,032,000) (7,693,000) (7,394,000) (7,292,000) (+260,000) (-401,000) (-102,000)
Accountwide adjustment..................... .................. .................. (-581,000) (-411,000) (-411,000) (-411,000) (+170,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, research and special programs.. (26,238,000) (31,662,000) (26,030,000) (24,281,000) (-1,957,000) (-7,381,000) (-1,749,000)
Pipeline safety (Pipeline Safety Fund)......... 34,991,500 39,720,000 27,243,000 30,275,000 -4,716,500 -9,445,000 +3,032,000
Pipeline safety (Oil Spill Liability Trust
Fund)......................................... 2,432,500 2,698,000 2,698,000 2,698,000 +265,500 .................. ..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Pipeline safety................ 37,424,000 42,418,000 29,941,000 32,973,000 -4,451,000 -9,445,000 +3,032,000
Alaska Pipeline task Force (Oil Spill Liability
Trust Fund) (rescission)...................... (-544,000) .................. .................. ....................... (+544,000) .................. ..................
Emergency preparedness grants:
(Emergency preparedness fund).............. 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 .................. .................. ..................
(Limitation on obligations)................ (10,800,000) (11,338,000) (8,890,000) (9,200,000) (-1,600,000) (-2,138,000) (+310,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Research and Special Programs
Admin................................... 64,062,000 74,480,000 56,371,000 57,654,000 -6,408,000 -16,826,000 +1,283,000
(Limitations on obligations)......... (10,800,000) (11,338,000) (8,890,000) (9,200,000) (-1,600,000) (-2,138,000) (+310,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources.......... (74,862,000) (85,818,000) (65,261,000) (66,854,000) (-8,008,000) (-18,964,000) (+1,593,000)
================================================================================================================================================
Office of Inspector General
Salaries and expenses.......................... 40,000,000 40,238,000 40,238,000 39,891,200 -108,800 -346,800 -346,800
Bureau of Transportation Statistics
Salaries and expenses.......................... .................. .................. .................. 2,200,000 +2,200,000 +2,200,000 +2,200,000
General Provisions
Administrative provision: Procurement (sec.
323a)......................................... -65,120,000 .................. .................. ....................... +65,120,000 .................. ..................
Bureau of Transportation Statistics (transfer
from Federal-aid Highways).................... (15,000,000) (20,000,000) (20,000,000) (20,000,000) (+5,000,000) .................. ..................
Federal railroad transfer (sec. 341)........... 3,000,000 .................. .................. ....................... -3,000,000 .................. ..................
Federal-aid highways (sec. 310 (e))............ .................. -574,341,000 .................. ....................... .................. +574,341,000 ..................
Working capital fund reduction (sec. 327)...... -7,000,000 .................. -10,000,000 -5,000,000 +2,000,000 -5,000,000 +5,000,000
DOT field office consolidation (sec. 335)...... .................. .................. -25,000,000 -25,000,000 -25,000,000 -25,000,000 ..................
ICC transition (sec. 344)...................... .................. .................. 8,421,000 ....................... .................. .................. -8,421,000
================================================================================================================================================
Total, title I, Dept of Transportation
(net)................................... 14,134,164,000 14,203,727,029 12,754,756,004 12,559,071,765 -1,575,092,235 -1,644,655,264 -195,684,239
Appropriations....................... (14,252,275,000) (14,249,114,000) (12,849,690,160) (12,902,720,200) (-1,349,554,800) (-1,346,393,800) (+53,030,040)
Rescissions.......................... (-118,111,000) (-45,386,971) (-94,934,156) (-343,648,435) (-225,537,435) (-298,261,464) (-248,714,279)
(Limitations on obligations)......... (21,770,423,000) (24,907,387,000) (22,646,440,000) (21,319,888,536) (-450,534,464) (-3,587,498,464) (-1,326,551,464)
(Exempt obligations)................. (2,267,701,000) (80,000,000) (2,311,932,000) (2,331,507,000) (+63,806,000) (+2,251,507,000) (+19,575,000)
================================================================================================================================================
Total budgetary resources including
(limitations on obligations) and
(exempt obligations).............. (38,172,288,000) (39,191,114,029) (37,713,128,004) (36,210,467,301) (-1,961,820,699) (-2,980,646,728) (-1,502,660,703)
Adjustments made for unified program........... .................. -3,199,373,000 .................. ....................... .................. +3,199,373,000 ..................
(Limitation on obligations)................ .................. (-24,420,105,000) .................. ....................... .................. (+24,420,105,000) ..................
Unified transportation infrastructure invest
program....................................... .................. 24,392,976,000 .................. ....................... .................. -24,392,976,000 ..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources................ (38,172,288,000) (39,163,985,029) (37,713,128,004) (36,210,467,301) (-1,961,820,699) (-2,953,517,728) (-1,502,660,703)
================================================================================================================================================
TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES
Architectural and Transportation Barriers
Compliance Board
Salaries and expenses.......................... 3,350,000 3,656,000 3,656,000 3,500,000 +150,000 -156,000 -156,000
National Transportation Safety Board
Salaries and expenses.......................... 37,392,000 38,774,000 38,774,000 37,500,000 +108,000 -1,274,000 -1,274,000
Emergency fund................................. .................. 360,802 160,802 360,802 +360,802 .................. +200,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, National Transportation Safety
Board................................... 37,392,000 39,134,802 38,934,802 37,860,802 +468,802 -1,274,000 -1,074,000
Interstate Commerce Commission
Salaries and expenses.......................... 30,302,000 28,844,000 13,379,000 13,379,000 -16,923,000 -15,465,000 ..................
Payments for directed rail service (limitation
on obligations)............................... (475,000) (475,000) (475,000) (475,000) .................. .................. ..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Interstate Commerce Commission.... (30,777,000) (29,319,000) (13,854,000) (13,854,000) (-16,923,000) (-15,465,000) ..................
Panama Canal Commission
Panama Canal Revolving Fund:
(Administrative expenses).................. (50,030,000) (50,741,000) (50,741,000) (50,741,000) (+711,000) .................. ..................
(Limitation on operating and capital
expenses)................................. (540,000,000) .................. .................. ....................... (-540,000,000) .................. ..................
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Interest payments and repayments of principal.. 9,193,000 .................. .................. ....................... -9,193,000 .................. ..................
================================================================================================================================================
Total, title II, Related Agencies........ 80,237,000 71,634,802 55,969,802 54,739,802 -25,497,198 -16,895,000 -1,230,000
(Limitation on obligations).......... (475,000) (475,000) (475,000) (475,000) .................. .................. ..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources.......... (80,712,000) (72,109,802) (56,444,802) (55,214,802) (-25,497,198) (-16,895,000) (-1,230,000)
================================================================================================================================================
Total appropriations (net)......... 14,214,401,000 35,468,964,831 12,810,725,806 12,613,811,567 -1,600,589,433 -22,855,153,264 -196,914,239
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<greek-d>
|
|
