 |
From the Senate Reports Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
Calendar No. 504
104th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 104-325
_______________________________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL,
1997
_______
July 19, 1996--Ordered to be printed
_______________________________________________________________________
Mr. Hatfield, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 3675]
The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the
bill (H.R. 3675) making appropriations for the Department of
Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1997, 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 1997
Amount of bill passed by the House...................... $12,551,311,000
Amount of bill as reported to Senate.................... 12,560,535,000
Amount of budget estimates, 1997........................ 12,633,915,627
Fiscal year 1996 enacted................................ 11,918,532,831
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........................................... 6
Transportation planning, research, and development............... 6
Transportation Administrative Service Center..................... 7
Payments to air carriers......................................... 8
Rental payments.................................................. 12
Minority Business Resource Center Program........................ 15
Minority business outreach....................................... 15
U.S. Coast Guard
Operating expenses............................................... 21
Acquisition, construction, and improvements...................... 29
Environmental compliance and restoration......................... 36
Port safety development.......................................... 37
Alteration of bridges............................................ 37
Retired pay...................................................... 38
Reserve training................................................. 38
Research, development, test, and evaluation...................... 39
Boat safety...................................................... 40
Federal Aviation Administration
Operations....................................................... 41
Facilities and equipment......................................... 54
Research, engineering, and development........................... 74
Grants-in-aid for airports....................................... 80
Aircraft Purchase Loan Guarantee Program......................... 84
Federal Highway Administration
Limitation on general operating expenses......................... 85
Administrative expenses.......................................... 86
Motor carrier safety operations.................................. 87
Highway-related safety grants.................................... 100
Federal-aid highways............................................. 101
Interstate substitute highways................................... 107
Right-of-way revolving fund...................................... 110
Motor carrier safety grants...................................... 110
Alameda corridor project loan program............................ 112
State infrastructure banks....................................... 112
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Operations and research.......................................... 114
Highway traffic safety grants.................................... 122
Federal Railroad Administration
Office of the Administrator...................................... 125
Railroad safety.................................................. 126
Railroad research and development................................ 128
Northeast Corridor Improvement Program........................... 130
High-speed rail trainsets and facilities......................... 132
Next generation high-speed rail.................................. 134
Alaska railroad rehabilitation................................... 135
Pennsylvania Station redevelopment project....................... 135
Rhode Island rail development.................................... 135
Direct loan financing program.................................... 136
Grants to National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)....... 136
Federal Transit Administration
Administrative expenses.......................................... 139
Formula grants................................................... 139
University transportation centers................................ 141
Transit planning and research.................................... 141
Trust fund share of transit programs............................. 143
Discretionary grants............................................. 143
Mass transit capital fund........................................ 161
Violent crime reduction programs................................. 161
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
Operations and maintenance....................................... 162
Research and Special Programs Administration
Research and special programs.................................... 164
Pipeline safety.................................................. 167
Emergency preparedness grants.................................... 170
Office of Inspector General
Salaries and expenses............................................ 171
Bureau of Transportation Statistics
Airport and airway trust fund.................................... 171
Surface Transportation Board
Salaries and expenses............................................ 173
TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board:
Salaries and expenses.......................................... 175
National Transportation Safety Board: Salaries and expenses...... 175
Panama Canal Commission: Panama Canal Revolving Fund............. 176
TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS
General provisions............................................... 178
Compliance with paragraph 7, rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of
the Senate..................................................... 180
Compliance with paragraph 7(c), rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules
of the Senate.................................................. 180
Compliance with paragraph 12, rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of
the Senate..................................................... 181
Budgetary impact statement....................................... 183
Total Obligational Authority Provided--General Funds and Trust Funds
In addition to the appropriation of $12,560,535,000 in new
budget authority for fiscal year 1997, 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 1997, estimated obligation
limitations total $23,214,850,000.
program, project, and activity
During fiscal year 1997, 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, 1996.................................... $56,189,000
Budget estimate, 1997................................... 55,376,000
House allowance......................................... 53,816,000
Committee recommendation
53,376,000
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 Committee recommends a total of $53,376,000 for the
salaries and expenses of the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation including $40,000 for reception and
representation expenses. This appropriation will support a
personnel level of 486 full-time equivalents.
Reductions in staff.--The Committee recommendation reduces
the administration's request by $1,000,000. This reduction
concurs with the House's observation regarding the Office of
Acquisition and Grants Management. However, the Committee has
reduced 5 positions from this activity instead of a reduction
of 10 positions as recommended by the House. While this
activity has previously been supported by both the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees, it does not appear as though
this office has been well utilized, and little value has been
added by OST's acquisition oversight. Agencies with large
procurement budgets, notably the Coast Guard and the Federal
Aviation Administration, have major in-house efforts for
acquisition oversight. It does not appear to the Committee as
though this additional layer has added to the quality of the
decisions made by those agencies, nor is the Committee aware of
any formal oversight reviews which have resulted in cost
savings or procurement efficiencies.
Other costs.--The Committee is reducing funding for other
costs by $1,000,000. The administration had requested a 34-
percent increase in this line item (from $10,226,000 in fiscal
year 1996 to $13,745,000 in 1997). The Committee's reduction is
associated with a cut for information technology and support.
It appears to the Committee that the Office of the Secretary
has spent considerable sums in both hardware and personnel for
developing a localized area network for the office, but has
still not decided on the configuration of the best possible
system, and is currently running four different types of
operations, some of which have very recently experienced
significant down time. Given the funding that has been provided
in the past, it does not appear to the Committee that the
computerization of the Office of the Secretary, which serves a
generally administrative function, should have these
difficulties in the information technology area. The Committee
has made the reduction in the hope that greater focus will be
put on this area, and that better decisions will be made about
the final design and configuration of the localized area
network system.
Bill Language
Electronic tariff filing.--The Committee has included bill
language which was also included by the House which permits the
Office of the Secretary to credit to this account $1,000,000 in
user fees to support the electronic tariff filing system.
Office of Civil Rights
Appropriations, 1996.................................... $6,554,000
Budget estimate, 1997................................... 5,574,000
House allowance......................................... 5,574,000
Committee recommendation
5,574,000
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 funded all internal civil
rights activities in the Department.
The Committee has provided a total of $5,574,000 for the
Office of Civil Rights, which will support a personnel level of
76 full-time equivalents.
Transportation Planning, Research, and Development
Appropriations, 1996.................................... $8,220,000
Budget estimate, 1997................................... 7,919,000
House allowance......................................... 3,000,000
Committee recommendation
4,158,000
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 reduced the administration's request by
$3,761,000. This recommended level would reduce the
administration's request in the following areas: -$250,000 for
funding related to planned trade promotion related to the
continuation of expanding and supporting the sale of U.S. goods
abroad; -$1,000,000, as recommended by the House, which deletes
funding for the development of GPS augmentation; and
-$2,511,000 associated with the further development of the
transportation automated procurement system [TAPS]. As observed
by the House, the pilot test program for TAPS has yet to be
completed, and it appears as though the funding requested may
be premature at this time.
Transportation Administrative Service Center
Limitation, 1996........................................ ($103,149,000)
Budget estimate, 1997...................................................
House allowance......................................... (124,812,000)
Committee recommendation
(124,812,000)
The Transportation Administrative Service Center [TASC]
will provide a business operation fund for DOT to provide a
wide range of administrative services to the Department and
other customers. TASC will function as an entrepreneurial and
self-sufficient entity and providing competitive quality
services responsive to customer needs. The TASC will be
governed by a Board of Directors composed of customer agencies,
operating in a competitive business like environment. The TASC
will present proposed operating and financial plans to the
Board at the beginning of each fiscal year. Once the Board has
approved those plans the TASC will provide cost-effective
products and services to its full customer base. The Director
of TASC will provide quarterly performance and financial
reports to the Board, will make recommendations for changes to
the approved plans and will be responsible for the day-to-day
management of the TASC. DOT administrations must procure
consolidated administrative services from the TASC unless a
financial analysis of the services demonstrates that it is more
cost beneficial to the Department as a whole--not to an
individual operating entity alone--to change the nature of the
service delivery (to consolidate a service or to decentralize a
service). TASC services are being marketed to customers outside
DOT to provide greater economies of scale, thus reducing costs
to individual customers. TASC services include:
--Functions currently in DOT's working capital fund [WCF];
--Office of the Secretary (OST] personnel, procurement and
information technology support operations, currently
financed in the OST Salaries and Expenses [S&E]
appropriation;
--Systems development staff, as well as central design
functions for transportation automated procurement
system [TAPS] and the dockets management system [DMS],
currently financed in the Transportation Planning,
Research and Development [TPR&D] appropriation;
--Operations of the consolidated departmental dockets
facilities; and
--Certain departmental services and administrative operations
such as, human resources management programs, transit
fare subsidy payments, employee wellness including
substance awareness and testing, and the Office of
Hearings, currently financed by reimbursable agreements
between OST and the operating administrations [OA].
All of the services of the TASC will be financed through
customer reimbursements, to the extent possible, on a fee-for-
service basis. The Committee concurs with the House's direction
regarding the hiring of transportation administrative service
center staff in fiscal year 1997. Full-time equivalent
personnel for similar activities in fiscal year 1995 was 287;
in 1996, 299. The Department requested a total of 330 FTE's for
fiscal year 1997, which the Committee deems excessive at this
time.
Payments to Air Carriers
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(airport and airway trust fund)
Appropriations, 1996.................................... ($22,600,000)
Budget estimate, 1997................................... (21,922,000)
House allowance......................................... (10,000,000)
Committee recommendation
(25,900,000)
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 eliminating all
communities within 70 miles of an FAA-designated small, medium,
or large hub airport.
Many points are located in remote rural areas: 57 of 69
communities served by the Essential Air Service Program are
more than 100 highway miles from the nearest small, medium, or
large hub airport. Twenty-six more communities are located in
Alaska, where, in all but two cases, year-round road access
does not exist. Recognizing the critical importance of EAS
service to these communities, the Committee intends that
service in Alaska not be reduced. 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 $25,900,000 for fiscal year 1997 payments to
air carriers which is the same as the limitation on
obligations.
limitation on obligations
The Committee recommends an obligation limitation of
$25,900,000, which is $3,978,000 above the administration's
request.
Under the Committee's recommended level, funding would be
provided for all those points currently receiving service.
The amount recommended by the Committee would include the
following points:
FISCAL YEAR 1997 EAS BUDGET PROJECTIONS \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Average daily
mileage to enplanements
nearest hub at EAS point Current annual Subsidy per
States/communities (small, (year ending subsidy rates passenger
medium, or March 31, (May 1, 1996)
large) 1995)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona:
Kingman..................................... 103 10.5 $94,663 $14.40
Page........................................ 274 23.3 129,560 8.87
Prescott.................................... 103 37.8 94,663 4.00
Arkansas:
El Dorado/Camden............................ 108 11.1 474,453 68.15
Harrison.................................... 139 10.0 775,862 124.10
Jonesboro................................... 71 10.5 474,453 71.98
California:
Crescent City............................... 233 15.2 151,450 15.91
Merced...................................... 118 22.1 182,121 13.14
Visalia..................................... 202 17.0 182,121 17.16
Colorado:
Cortez...................................... 253 27.0 92,976 5.49
Lamar....................................... 162 4.4 190,987 69.93
Hawaii: Kamuela................................. 39 5.6 215,361 61.30
Iowa: Ottumwa................................... 92 5.9 268,410 72.64
Kansas:
Dodge City.................................. 156 14.9 113,693 12.19
Garden City................................. 209 25.4 190,987 12.01
Goodland.................................... 190 3.0 190,987 102.79
Great Bend.................................. 116 6.0 113,693 30.24
Hays........................................ 175 16.6 113,693 10.92
Liberal/Guymon.............................. 162 10.5 190,987 28.95
Topeka...................................... 76 22.9 102,362 7.13
Maine:
Augusta/Waterville \2\...................... 71 21.5 288,516 42.92
Bar Harbor.................................. 164 16.9 259,243 24.57
Rockland.................................... 79 14.8 259,243 28.02
Minnesota:
Fairmont.................................... 153 3.9 247,771 100.39
Fergus Falls................................ 185 13.5 146,508 17.38
Mankato..................................... 75 5.1 247,771 77.04
Missouri:
Cape Girardeau.............................. 133 20.4 164,027 12.85
Fort Leonard Wood........................... 130 14.5 196,606 21.69
Kirksville.................................. 158 8.5 224,382 42.24
Montana:
Glasgow..................................... 279 6.4 303,956 76.07
Glendive.................................... 223 2.7 511,909 308.19
Havre....................................... 251 4.9 439,972 143.41
Lewiston.................................... 129 3.7 439,972 189.32
Miles City.................................. 145 3.2 511,909 257.76
Sidney...................................... 273 7.2 511,909 113.86
Wolf Point.................................. 295 4.7 303,956 103.70
Nebraska:
Alliance.................................... 242 2.7 346,863 203.68
Chadron..................................... 301 2.7 346,863 207.33
Hastings.................................... 160 2.8 317,496 183.95
Kearney..................................... 186 10.1 317,496 50.04
McCook...................................... 259 3.3 657,724 322.73
Nevada: Ely..................................... 236 7.4 508,759 109.74
New Mexico:
Alamogordo/Holloman AFB..................... 92 12.7 166,705 20.91
Clovis...................................... 106 15.0 200,332 21.31
Silver City/Hurley/Deming................... 163 11.2 263,458 37.62
New York:
Massena..................................... 149 20.5 198,810 15.51
Ogdensburg.................................. 127 10.0 198,810 31.72
North Dakota:
Devils Lake................................. 403 12.4 208,119 26.81
Dickinson................................... 313 11.9 141,502 18.95
Jamestown................................... 304 10.3 208,119 32.20
Oklahoma:
Enid........................................ 91 12.0 301,400 40.28
Ponca City.................................. 88 13.7 301,400 35.24
Pennsylvania: Oil City/Franklin................. 91 27.0 89,916 5.32
South Dakota:
Brookings................................... 211 5.6 247,771 70.61
Mitchell.................................... 245 3.6 247,771 110.32
Yankton..................................... 159 9.0 268,875 47.78
Texas: Brownwood................................ 153 7.1 372,426 83.58
Utah:
Cedar City.................................. 257 19.1 292,882 24.55
Moab........................................ 241 6.0 367,713 98.69
Vernal...................................... 171 19.2 194,466 16.18
Virginia: Staunton.............................. 108 31.4 188,050 9.58
Washington: Ephrata/Moses Lake.................. 122 26.3 177,628 10.80
West Virginia:
Beckley..................................... 186 12.0 137,229 18.25
Princeton/Bluefield......................... 145 15.6 137,229 14.09
Wyoming: Worland................................ 164 8.3 145,239 27.86
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal of long-term non-Alaska rates.... .............. .............. 16,952,183 ..............
Long-term Alaska rates.......................... .............. .............. 2,058,412 ..............
Six Mesa communities............................ .............. .............. 1,000,000 ..............
Fort Leonard Wood............................... .............. .............. 100,000 ..............
Kamuela......................................... .............. .............. 80,000 ..............
Staunton........................................ .............. .............. 40,000 ..............
Moab............................................ .............. .............. 125,000 ..............
Commuter safety rule............................ .............. .............. 144,405 ..............
Rate increases and hold-ins..................... .............. .............. 3,645,140 ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... .............. .............. 24,145,140 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The above list of communities is based on currently available data, and is subject to change for a number of
reasons. Subsidy rates change as their 2-year rate terms expire throughout the year. In addition, air carriers
submit passenger traffic data on a quarterly basis. Changes in both subsidy rates and traffic levels will, of
course, change subsidy-per-passenger calculations. Further, some communities currently receiving subsidy-free
service may require subsidy in the future while some currently subsidized communities may attain profitability
and no longer require subsidy. Finally, hub designations are recalculated annually and published by the FAA in
the Airport Activities Statistics.
\2\ Enplanements based on less than 1 full year's passenger data annualized.
Under the administration's proposal the following points
would no longer be eligible for subsidy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enplanements
Estimated per day at EAS
States/communities mileage to Small hub or point (year Current annual
nearest hub jet ending March subsidy rate
31, 1995)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas: Hot Springs........................... 54 S 14.9 $374,739
New Hampshire: Keene............................ 56 S 7.2 312,202
Alabama:
Anniston.................................... 61 S 8.5 494,816
Tuscaloosa.................................. 61 S 32.1 128,361
Vermont: Rutland................................ 67 S 10.4 312,202
New York: Watertown............................. 69 S 15.8 132,540
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total subsidy............................. .............. .............. .............. 1,754,860
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends a funding level to accommodate the
points listed above.
Slot access.--Under 49 U.S.C. 41714(a)(2), the Secretary is
given authority to provide for additional essential air service
at slot-controlled airports by exemption, ``unless such an
exemption would significantly increase operational delays.''
The recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia in Mesa Air Group v. Department of
Transportation (No. 98-1017) has limited the power of the
Secretary to compel commuter airlines to provide essential air
service at reduced levels without revising their subsidy
contracts.
In some cases, however, it may be possible to maintain and
improve essential air services without significantly increasing
funding requirements by providing for additional exemptions
under the Secretary's existing powers and to improve service to
nonhub cities as well. Where that is the case, the Secretary is
directed to make the fullest possible use of those powers. In
order to minimize the risk that such exemptions would increase
operational delays, the Secretary should consider various
options, including allowing changes in slot timing which do not
increase the total number of slots. Such a step could be
facilitated, for example, by combining essential air service
slots with the pool of slots reserved at O'Hare Airport for
military operations in a way that would increase the
Department's flexibility with regard to the time of day
assigned to essential air service slots. Changes in the time of
day essential air service flights are operated can
significantly affect subsidy costs. The Secretary is also
directed to use exemption authority to improve service to
nonhub airports where significant improvements can be achieved.
This directive is limited to O'Hare International Airport and
aircraft carrying less than 60 passengers.
Payments to Air Carriers
(rescission on contract authorization)
(airport and airway trust fund)
Rescission, 1996........................................ -$16,000,000
Budget estimate, 1997 \1\............................... -16,678,000
House allowance......................................... -28,600,000
Committee recommendation................................ -12,700,000
\1\ Consistent with the budget proposal, contract authority previously
enacted is proposed to be rescinded.
The House has included bill language which would rescind
$28,600,000 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 $10,000,000 limitation on obligations.
Under the Senate proposal only $12,700,000 of the contract
authority would be unused and is, therefore, recommended for
rescission.
Payments to Air Carriers
(Rescission)
Rescission, 1996........................................ -$6,786,971
Budget estimate, 1997................................... -1,133,373
House allowance......................................... -1,133,000
Committee recommendation
-1,133,000
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, 1996.................................... $135,200,000
Budget estimate, 1997 \1\............................... 137,581,000
House allowance......................................... 127,447,000
Committee recommendation................................ 132,500,000
\1\ Rental payments for the FHWA are separately budgeted but reimbursed
to this account.
Rental payments to the General Services Administration
[GSA] are included as a separate line-item appropriation in the
bill. Overall, the administration has requested a 1.8-percent
increase in the general fund appropriation for rental payments.
The Committee has provided an appropriation of $132,500,000
for rental payments in fiscal year 1997, a 2-percent reduction
from the 1996 level, plus $17,192,000 to be paid by
reimbursement from the highway trust fund for a total of
$149,692,000.
Funding for rental payments has been held to the fiscal
year 1996 level. The Committee generally concurs with the
House's observation that, given the downsizing in the
Department of Transportation (for which the Department should
be commended), increased rental payments should not be
necessary if the consolidation of space is properly managed. As
observed by the House, the recent renovations necessary at the
Nassif Building present an opportunity for the Department to
reorganize its office space to better achieve savings in fiscal
year 1997. The Committee expects that the Department will be
able to reduce its space utilization rates, and thereby release
excess space to the General Services Administration.
GSA RENTAL PAYMENTS \1\
[Dollars and square feet in thousands]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1995 enacted Fiscal year 1996 Fiscal year 1997 request
\2\ Fiscal year projected \3\ -------------------------
Administration -------------------------- 1995 GSA --------------------------
Funding Square feet billings Funding Square feet Funding Square feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Highway Administration............................... [$18,044] [987] [$16,388] [$17,192] [1,060] [$18,225] [1,063]
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration............... 4,716 155 4,278 4,393 219 4,438 207
Federal Railroad Administration.............................. 3,363 135 2,979 3,094 160 3,192 160
Federal Transit Administration............................... 3,332 109 3,078 3,237 151 3,350 144
Federal Aviation Administration.............................. 75,820 4,374 68,653 69,743 4,223 69,550 4,189
U.S. Coast Guard............................................. 42,281 2,347 39,710 40,644 2,564 38,595 2,486
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation.................. 181 6 163 195 9 193 9
Research and Special Programs Administration................. 2,378 77 2,217 2,039 102 2,270 102
Office of the Inspector General.............................. 2,579 94 2,207 2,267 113 2,479 111
Office of the Secretary of Transportation.................... 9,679 1,440 12,627 12,942 614 13,013 597
Bureau of Transportation Statistics.......................... 90 3 161 314 16 501 18
OST--rental payments to GSA.................................. [144,419] ........... [136,074] [138,868] [8,171] [137,581] ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................... 144,419 8,740 136,074 138,868 8,171 137,581 8,023
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rescissions.............................................. (7,445) ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Federal Highway Administration............................... 18,044 987 16,389 17,192 1,060 18,225 1,063
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Department of Transportation (excludes MarAd)... 155,018 9,727 152,463 156,060 9,231 155,806 9,086
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Enacted as a single account under the Office of the Secretary of Transportation. The budgets proposes appropriations language which directs the
reimbursement of FHWA GSA rent from FHWA LGOE account to the consolidated account.
\2\ Fiscal year 1995 Office of the Secretary of Transportation funding of $9,679,000 reflects a $3,000,000 credit for rate reductions for all
administrations headquarters space as reported to Congress by GSA. However, each administration received their share of the credit on the actual
bills.
\3\ Fiscal year 1996 requirements are best represented by the projected billings. There is no distribution by mode of the enacted amounts of
$152,885,000 and 8.58 million square feet because they are less than our existing inventory. An increase in square footage for most modes over the
fiscal year 1995 enacted level is due to the redistribution of each mode's share of headquarters parking from OST to the mode. In total there is an
overall reduction in square feet.
Minority Business Resource Center Program
Appropriations, 1996.................................... $1,900,000
Budget estimate, 1997................................... 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 1997, 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 1996 and 1997.
The program provides a valuable source of working capital for
minority businesses to manage their transportation-related
contracts. Of the funds appropriated $1,500,000 covers the
direct subsidy costs for loans not to exceed $15,000,000; and,
$400,000 is for administrative expenses to carry out the Direct
Loan Program.
Minority Business Outreach
Appropriations, 1996.................................... $2,900,000
Budget estimate, 1997................................... 2,900,000
House allowance......................................... 2,900,000
Committee recommendation
2,900,000
This appropriation provides contractual support to assist
minority business firms, entrepreneurs, and venture groups in
securing contracts and subcontracts arising out of projects
that involve Federal spending. It also provides support to
historically black and Hispanic colleges. Separate funding is
requested by the administration since this program provides
grants and contract assistance that serves DOT-wide goals and
not just OST purposes.
General Provisions
Political and Presidential appointees.--The Committee has
included a provision in the bill (sec. 305), which is similar
to general provisions that have been included in previous
appropriations acts, which limits the number of political and
Presidential appointees within the Department of
Transportation. The Committee is recommending that the ceiling
for fiscal year 1997 be 107 personnel, which is the same as the
House recommendation.
Advisory committees.--The Committee has included a general
provision (sec. 331) similar to that recommended by the House
which would limit the amount of funds that could be used for
the expenses of advisory committees utilized by the Department
of Transportation. The limitation specified is $1,050,000,
which is $200,000 above that enacted in fiscal year 1996.
Transportation administrative service center.--The
Committee is recommending a general provision (sec. 321) which
was recommended by the House to limit the amounts for the
transportation administrative service center to $114,812,000.
This limitation will be imposed on a pro rata basis across all
of the agencies within the Department of Transportation, but
does not pertain to nondepartment entities.
Rental payments.--The Committee has included a new general
provision (sec. 326) which provides the Secretary the authority
to transfer funds out of the salaries and expenses accounts of
the various agencies into the ``Rental payments'' account. Such
transfers are only to be used to cover space, utility, and
ancillary charges imposed by the General Services
Administration, and are to cover only those expenses which are
in excess of the specific rental payment ($149,692,000)
provided in the bill.
Employee buyouts.--The Committee has included a general
provision which allows the Department of Transportation to
provide employees with buyouts. The Department has made good
progress in meeting the fiscal year 1999 ``National Performance
Review'' [NPR] targets regarding employment. On May 31, 1996,
the Department had achieved a 25-percent reduction in the NPR
targeted positions, the halfway point under the NPR plan. Most
of this can be attributed to the Department's ability to offer
buyouts. The Department's nonbuyout attrition rate is slightly
more than 3 percent. Therefore, achieving the remaining 25
percent of the target is going to be more difficult unless the
Department has the authority and the option to offer employee
buyouts. Without such an option, it is likely that the
Department would have to revert to involuntary separations in
order to achieve its targeted goals. Given the employee time in
service, many employees in the targeted areas of the Department
of Transportation will be reaching retirement eligibility, and
the buyout option may be a good incentive for employees to
retire earlier and assist the Department in meeting the NPR
targets.
--U.S. Coast Guard.--The additional buyout authority will
allow the agency to accommodate planned reorganization
such as the relocation of the Electronics Engineering
Center in Wildwood, NJ; phase II of the Governors
Island shutdown; completion of the reorganization of
the Office of Marine Safety; and the security and
environmental office reorganization.
--Federal Railroad Administration.--Due to the numerous
issues surrounding railroad safety, the Committee feels
that additional buyouts in this area will also be of
great assistance. For example, the FRA has not hired up
to its allocated ceiling in the safety inspector
occupation work force. Since, as attrition occurs,
these positions will only be filled on a 1-for-1 basis,
reductions would have to be taken elsewhere within FRA
if more than the attrited positions were to be filled.
Consequently, buyouts are a necessary tool to reach
overall FRA reductions, as well as hiring up to its
allocated ceiling in the specific area of safety
inspector work force.
--Office of the Secretary.--With few exceptions, the majority
of the Office of the Secretary's employees are
considered headquarters personnel. Additionally,
departmental budget, accounting, personnel, and
acquisition areas are administered in the office, so
that it has a disproportionately high concentration of
targeted occupations. In an effort to streamline and
restructure this office while still offering necessary
services to the public and its operating agencies, the
Office of the Secretary needs the added flexibility of
buyouts to meet the NPR targets assigned to them.
Bonus and award payments.--The Department of Transportation
has budgeted $25,961,904 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.
The total amount recommended for each agency versus the
1997 budget request is depicted below. The Committee has
included a general provision in the bill which limits funds for
employee bonuses and awards to $25,448,300.
PERFORMANCE AWARDS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Agency Fiscal year 1997 budget Committee
1996 limitation estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Secretary...................................... $500,037 \1\ $407,000 $407,000
Coast Guard.................................................. 1,713,461 1,716,500 1,713,500
Federal Aviation Administration.............................. 20,897,137 20,976,888 20,800,000
Federal Highway Administration............................... 1,298,544 1,341,652 1,200,000
Bureau of Transportation Statistics.......................... 22,913 66,950 30,090
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration............... 303,738 335,000 303,000
Federal Railroad Administration.............................. 306,729 317,000 302,000
Federal Transit Administration............................... 238,945 220,714 220,710
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation.................. 48,814 50,000 48,000
Research and Special Programs Administration \2\............. 139,468 144,200 139,000
Office of Inspector General.................................. 185,289 186,000 185,000
Revenue for Presidential rank awards......................... 220,000 ............... ...............
Surface Transportation Board................................. ............... 200,000 100,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 25,875,075 25,961,904 25,448,300
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $120,000 for the Transportation Administrative Service Center.
\2\ Excludes Volpe National Transportation Systems Center.
Other
Reductions in fiscal year 1996 appropriations.--In fiscal
year 1996, reductions were made to a number of accounts due to
limitations or reductions imposed in various areas, such as the
working capital fund, performance awards, administrative and
consolidation savings, and rescissions required by the Omnibus
Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 (Public
Law 104-134). In the Senate Committee report, each account head
shows the amount originally appropriated in Public Law 104-50,
before the various and sundry reductions were made. The table
below depicts the amount of funds originally appropriated for
each of the accounts, and the reductions required.
REDUCTIONS IN FISCAL YEAR 1996 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION APPROPRIATIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Awards GP 349 Administrative Section 31002 Net
Account Enacted WCF GP 327 \1\ \1\ GP 335 \1\ Rescission \1\ rescission \2\ appropriation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Secretary:
Salaries and expenses....... $56,189,000 $593,389 $9,963 $1,762,000 ............... $78,000 $53,745,648
Transportation planning,
research, and development.. 8,220,000 ............... 1,000 300,000 ............... 13,000 7,906,000
Office of Civil Rights...... 6,554,000 ............... 2,000 925,000 ............... 9,000 5,618,000
Minority business outreach.. 2,900,000 ............... ............... ............... ............... 4,000 2,896,000
Working capital fund........ 103,149,000 (7,500,000) (6,000) ............... ............... ............... 95,643,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................. ............... 593,389 12,963 2,987,000 ............... 104,000 ................
=======================================================================================================================
U.S. Coast Guard:
Operating expenses
(excluding $300,000,000
transferred from DOD)...... 2,278,991,000 1,733,000 ............... 195,000 ............... 1,133,000 2,275,930,000
Acquisition, construction,
and improvements........... 362,375,000 ............... ............... ............... ............... \3\ (500,000) 362,375,000
Retired pay................. 582,022,000 ............... ............... ............... ............... 2,500,000 579,522,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................. ............... 1,733,000 ............... 195,000 ............... 3,633,000 ................
=======================================================================================================================
Federal Aviation Administration:
Operations (general and
trust) \4\................. 4,645,712,000 2,271,888 720,112 ............... ............... ............... 4,642,720,000
Facilities and equipment.... 1,934,883,000 ............... ............... ............... \5\ $13,590,000 \6\ 3,100,000 1,918,193,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................. ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ................
=======================================================================================================================
Federal Highway Administration:
Motor carrier safety grants
(obligation limitation).... 77,225,000 ............... ............... ............... ............... 1,000 77,224,000
Limitation on general
operating expenses......... 509,660,000 (1,658,000) ............... (14,003,000) ............... (756,000) 509,660,000
Federal-aid Highways
(obligation limitation) \7\ 17,550,000,000 1,692,073 4,427 14,192,000 ............... 1,146,000 17,532,965,500
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................. ............... 1,692,073 4,427 14,192,000 ............... 1,147,000 ................
=======================================================================================================================
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration:
Operations and research
(general).................. 73,316,570 232,947 103 1,442,550 ............... 140,000 71,500,970
Operations and research
(trust).................... 51,884,430 161,950 ............... 1,002,450 ............... 66,000 50,654,030
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................. ............... 394,897 103 2,445,000 ............... 206,000 ................
=======================================================================================================================
Federal Railroad Administration:
Office of the Administrator. 14,018,000 78,000 2,000 274,000 ............... \3\ (28,000) 13,664,000
Railroad Safety............. 49,919,000 46,900 4,100 240,000 ............... 70,000 49,558,000
Railroad research and
development................ 24,550,000 9,000 ............... 426,000 ............... \8\ 34,000 24,081,000
Northeast corridor program.. 115,000,000 ............... ............... ............... ............... 6,000 114,994,000
Next generation high-speed
rail....................... 19,205,000 1,000 ............... 53,000 ............... \9\ 24,000 19,127,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................. ............... 134,900 6,100 993,000 ............... 134,000 ................
=======================================================================================================================
Federal Transit Administration:
Administrative expenses..... 42,000,000 377,857 143 900,000 ............... ............... 40,722,000
Formula grants (general and
trust) \4\................. 2,052,925,000 ............... ............... 950,000 ............... 147,000 2,051,828,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................. ............... 377,857 143 1,850,000 ............... 147,000 ................
=======================================================================================================================
St. Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation: Operations and
maintenance.................... 10,150,000 16,000 ............... 570,000 ............... 15,000 9,549,000
=======================================================================================================================
Research and Special Programs
Administration:
Research and special
Programs................... 23,937,000 143,000 2,000 242,000 ............... ............... 23,550,000
Pipeline Safety............. 31,448,000 81,000 1,000 131,000 ............... 65,000 31,170,000
Emergency Preparedness
Grants (limitation)........ 8,890,000 ............... ............... 9,000 ............... ............... ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................. ............... 224,000 3,000 382,000 ............... 65,000 ................
=======================================================================================================================
Office of Inspector General:
Salaries and expenses.......... 40,238,000 67,996 4 1,386,000 ............... 57,000 38,727,000
=======================================================================================================================
Bureau of Transportation
Statistics \7\................. 2,200,000 (34,073) (4,427) (189,000) ............... 3,000 2,197,000
=======================================================================================================================
Surface Transportation Board:
Salaries and expen- ses....... 8,421,000 ............... ............... ............... ............... 7,000 8,414,000
=======================================================================================================================
Total reductions,
Department of
Transportation........... ............... 7,506,000 746,852 25,000,000 13,590,000 \10\ 8,618,000 ................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reductions due to Public Law 104-50.
\2\ Reductions due to Public Law 104-134.
\3\ From unobligated balance.
\4\ Reductions taken from general fund appropriation.
\5\ An additional $46,410,000 rescission from unobligated balances for a total of $60,000,000.
\6\ An additional $5,711,000 rescisssion from unobligated balances for a total of $8,811,000.
\7\ BTS reductions in parentheses included under Federal-aid highways.
\8\ An additional $5,000 rescission from unobligated balances for a total of $39,000.
\9\ An additional $2,000 rescission from unobligated balances for a total of $26,000.
\10\ An additional $6,426,000 unobligated balances (footnotes 3, 6, 8, and 9 above) and $162,000 from MARAD ocean freight differential for a Department
of Transportation total of $15,026,000.
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 1997
budget includes asset sales in the Coast Guard to be credited
as an offsetting collection. 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.
U.S. COAST GUARD
Summary of Fiscal Year 1997 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
$3,762,934,000 for the activities of the Coast Guard in fiscal
year 1997. The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Program 1996 enacted Fiscal year House Committee
\1\ 1997 estimate allowance recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating expenses............................. \2\ 2,578,991 \3\ 2,637,850 2,609,100 \4\ 2,631,350
Acquisition, construction, and improvements.... 362,375 \5\ 411,600 \5\ 354,245 \6\ 395,060
Environmental compliance and restoration....... 21,000 25,000 21,000 23,000
Port safety development........................ 15,000 .............. .............. ...............
Alteration of bridges.......................... 16,000 2,000 16,000 10,000
Retired pay.................................... 582,022 608,084 608,084 608,084
Reserve training............................... 62,000 65,890 65,890 65,890
Research, development, test, and evaluation.... 18,000 20,300 19,000 19,550
Boat safety.................................... 20,000 .............. 35,000 10,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................... 3,675,388 3,770,724 3,728,319 3,762,934
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reductions pursuant to sections 327 and 335 of Public Law 104-50 and section 31002 of Public Law
104-134.
\2\ Includes $300,000,000 in Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1996.
\3\ Includes $118,500,000 from defense discretionary funds.
\4\ Includes $300,000,000 in Department of Defense appropriations.
\5\ This amount would be reduced $20,000,000 under proposed asset sales.
\6\ Includes $1,960,000 in reprogramming of prior-year funding.
Operating Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Trust Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1996 \1\.................................. $2,533,991,000 $45,000,000 $2,578,991,000
Budget estimate, 1997 \2\................................. 2,612,850,000 25,000,000 2,637,850,000
House allowance........................................... 2,584,100,000 25,000,000 2,609,100,000
Committee recommendation \1\.............................. 2,606,350,000 25,000,000 2,631,350,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $300,000,000 by transfer from the Department of Defense.
\2\ Includes $118,500,000 from defense discretionary funds.
The ``Operating expenses'' appropriation provides funds for
the operation and maintenance of multipurpose vessels,
aircraft, and shore units strategically located along the
coasts and inland waterways of the United States and in
selected areas overseas.
The program activities of this appropriation fall into the
following categories:
Search and rescue.--One of its earliest and most
traditional missions, the Coast Guard maintains a nationwide
system of boats, aircraft, cutters, and rescue coordination
centers on 24-hour alert.
Aids to navigation.--To help mariners determine their
location and avoid accidents, the Coast Guard maintains a
network of manned and unmanned aids to navigation along our
coasts and on our inland waterways, and operates radio stations
in the United States and abroad to serve the needs of the armed
services and marine and air commerce.
Marine safety.--The Coast Guard insures compliance with
Federal statutes and regulations designed to improve safety in
the merchant marine industry and operates a recreational
boating safety program.
Marine environmental protection.--The primary objectives of
this program are to minimize the dangers of marine pollution
and to assure the safety of U.S. ports and waterways.
Enforcement of laws and treaties.--The Coast Guard is the
principal maritime enforcement agency with regard to Federal
laws on the navigable waters of the United States and the high
seas, including fisheries, drug smuggling, illegal immigration,
and hijacking of vessels.
Ice operations.--In the Arctic and Antarctic, Coast Guard
icebreakers escort supply ships, support research activities
and Department of Defense operations, survey uncharted waters,
and collect scientific data. The Coast Guard also assists
commercial vessels through ice-covered waters.
Defense readiness.--During peacetime the Coast Guard
maintains an effective state of military preparedness to
operate as a service in the Navy in time of war or national
emergency at the direction of the President. As such the Coast
Guard has primary responsibility for the security of ports,
waterways, and navigable waters up to 200 miles offshore.
committee funding recommendation
The Committee recommendation for Coast Guard operating
expenses is $2,631,350,000, including $25,000,000 from the
oilspill liability trust fund and $300,000,000 from the Defense
appropriations bill for national security missions.
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
1996 Budget House Committee
enacted request allowance recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pay and allowances:
Military pay and benefits............................ 1,206,924 1,225,850 1,225,850 1,225,850
Civilian pay and benefits............................ 176,833 180,221 180,221 180,221
Permanent change of station.......................... 58,513 57,871 57,871 57,871
Medical care and equipment........................... 119,966 117,938 117,938 117,938
Leased housing....................................... 14,900 15,976 15,976 15,976
Activitywide adjustments............................. ........... ........... ........... -3
------------------------------------------------------
Total, pay and allowances.......................... 1,577,136 1,597,856 1,597,856 1,597,853
======================================================
Depot level maintenance:
Aircraft............................................. 139,456 144,890 144,890 144,890
Electronics.......................................... 31,746 35,276 35,276 35,276
Shore facilities..................................... 93,671 96,163 96,163 96,163
Vessels.............................................. 97,416 99,915 99,915 99,915
Program reestimate................................... ........... ........... -14,307 ..............
------------------------------------------------------
Total, depot level maintenance..................... 362,289 376,244 361,937 376,244
======================================================
Operations and support:
Area operations and support:
Cutters:
Medium endurance (WMEC)...................... 16,922 17,999 17,999 17,999
High endurance (WHEC)........................ 10,917 11,839 11,839 11,839
Polar WAGB's................................. 2,047 2,065 2,065 2,065
Area offices..................................... 11,416 12,307 12,307 12,307
Maintenance and logistics com- mands............ 123,885 123,413 121,663 123,413
Communication stations........................... 3,306 3,586 3,586 3,586
District operations and support:
District offices................................. 53,237 57,726 54,037 55,880
Groups/bases..................................... 67,307 75,170 75,170 75,170
Combined group/air station....................... 9,370 10,010 10,010 10,010
Air stations..................................... 44,553 45,726 45,726 45,726
Marine safety offices............................ 8,563 9,992 9,992 9,992
Long-range electronic navaids (Loran)........... 6,189 6,337 6,337 6,337
Cutters-WLB's and smaller; Mack- inaw........... 29,247 31,995 31,995 31,995
Vessel traffic service [VTS] systems............. 245 243 243 243
Ammunition and small arms............................ 4,667 4,667 2,667 3,500
------------------------------------------------------
Total, operations and support...................... 391,871 413,075 405,636 410,062
======================================================
Recruiting and training support:
Recruiting........................................... 5,651 5,717 5,717 5,717
Training centers..................................... 26,243 26,531 26,531 26,531
Coast Guard Academy.................................. 12,579 12,685 12,685 12,685
Professional training and education.................. 24,162 23,496 21,496 22,496
------------------------------------------------------
Total, recruiting and training support............. 68,635 68,429 66,429 67,429
======================================================
Coast Guard-wide centralized services and support:
Headquarters-managed units:
Engineering Logistics Center..................... 7,868 7,931 7,931 7,931
Finance center................................... 4,764 4,840 4,840 4,840
Military pay and personnel center................ 1,202 1,221 1,221 1,221
Coast Guard yard................................. 1,902 1,929 1,929 1,929
National Strike Force............................ 2,744 2,870 2,870 2,870
National Pollution Funds Center.................. 1,190 1,209 1,209 1,209
COMDAC support facility.......................... 1,971 2,407 2,407 2,407
Air station Washington, DC....................... 917 932 932 932
Operations Systems Center........................ 6,894 7,005 7,005 7,005
Telecommunications/information systems command... 3,344 3,397 3,397 3,397
Navigation Center................................ 772 784 784 784
Intelligence Coordination Center................. 231 235 235 235
Electronics Engineering Center................... 4,225 6,630 6,630 5,325
Coast Guard Institute............................ 757 769 769 769
Research and Development Center.................. 433 440 440 440
Coast Guard Personnel Center..................... 808 821 821 821
National Maritime Center......................... 3,128 3,108 3,108 3,108
Headquarters......................................... 105,359 106,268 106,268 106,268
Centralized bill paying:
Postal........................................... 6,674 6,181 6,181 6,181
FTS.............................................. 11,160 11,339 11,339 11,160
Federal employment compensation.................. 6,243 6,652 6,652 6,652
Unemployment compensation........................ 4,546 5,278 5,278 5,278
------------------------------------------------------
Total, Coast Guard-wide centralized services
and support................................... 177,132 182,246 182,246 180,762
======================================================
Total, accountwide adjustments................. -3,061 ........... -5,004 -1,000
======================================================
Total appropriation............................ 2,578,991 2,637,850 2,609,100 2,631,350
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Fiscal year 1996 enacted and fiscal year 1997 Committee recommendation includes $300,000,000 provided by
transfer from the Department of Defense.
PAY AND ALLOWANCES
Medical care and equipment.--The Committee has provided the
full amount requested for medical care and equipment, which is
the same as 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 1996.
Activitywide adjustments.--The Committee has provided the
requested amounts for each of the individual subactivities
under the pay and allowances activity. However, to the overall
account, the Committee is recommending a $3,000 activitywide
cut which reflects a reduction from the bonuses and awards line
item, which affects the Coast Guard accountwide.
DEPOT LEVEL MAINTENANCE
The Coast Guard request for $14,307,000 for nonrecurring
maintenance funding is required to restore one-time
streamlining costs for the Coast Guard's aeronautical,
electronic, and civil engineering programs. In order to achieve
the savings the Coast Guard needed in fiscal year 1997, much of
the costs to execute the major streamlining initiatives had to
be funded in fiscal year 1996, in large part by nonrecurring
deferrals from depot-level maintenance accounts. These costs
include civilian severance expenses, extraordinary personnel,
and equipment reallocations, as well as the immediate facility
modification and upgrades essential to accommodate streamlining
relocation initiatives.
The one-time funding request for fiscal year 1997 will
allow for a timely completion of priority projects which affect
the readiness availability of ships, aircraft, and other
operational assets. Examples of deferred projects are the HH-60
helicopter main rotor blade tip cap retrofit project, small
boat electronic equipment standardization, and Group North Bend
underground storage tank replacement. Loss of these funds would
force the beginning of a multiyear cycle of deferral to the
detriment of efficient operational service deliveries.
OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT
Area operations and support
Maintenance and logistics commands.--The Committee has
provided the full amount requested for the maintenance and
logistics commands, which is a $1,750,000 increase over the
House allowance. Even at the fiscal year 1997 requested level,
the funding provided by the Committee is slightly less than the
fiscal year 1996 enacted level. A cut to the maintenance and
logistics command category, which essentially manages and funds
support activities for all Coast Guard units performing
operational missions, would constitute an across-the-board cut
to operational field units.
District operations and support/district offices
District offices.--The Committee has provided a total of
$55,880,000 for district offices, which is $1,843,000 above the
House's recommendation. The Committee believes that, even
though the Coast Guard is in the process of eliminating two
district offices as part of its overall streamlining plan,
sufficient funding is necessary because the immediate savings
will not be realized to the extent estimated under the House's
funding level. The funding level provided is 5 percent above
the fiscal year 1996 level, which is slightly below the 8-
percent increase that was requested in the administration's
budget.
Ammunition and small arms
The Committee has provided $3,500,000 for the ammunition
and small arms subaccount, which is $833,000 more than that
recommended by the House. The Committee understands that there
has been some downsizing in the ammunition and small arms needs
because of changes in the Coast Guard's military readiness
plans. However, proper levels of ammunition and small arms
maintenance are critical for accomplishing the Coast Guard's
law enforcement mission and keeping Coast Guard personnel
trained and qualified in safe operation of small arms.
RECRUITING AND TRAINING SUPPORT
The recruiting and training support category has several
subsets, including recruiting, training centers (Yorktown, VA;
Petaluma, CA; and Cape May, NJ), the Coast Guard Academy, and
professional training and education. The Committee has provided
$1,000,000 less than the amount requested. The Committee has,
however, restored $1,000,000 back to the professional training
and education activity which was reduced $2,000,000 in the
House's recommendation. The Committee believes that the Coast
Guard has done a good job in trying to hold costs down, and
though its budget for professional training and education is
sizable, at the $22,496,000 recommended by the Committee,
further cuts are 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
$180,762,000 overall for centralized services and support, a
reduction of $1,484,000 from the requested level (less than 1
percent). The reductions in this activity include a reduction
of $179,000 from the FTS 2000 telecommunications request; and a
$1,305,000 reduction from the electronics engineering center,
but still provides a 26-percent increase over the fiscal year
1996 level for this subactivity.
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
recommendation of the House, which includes a nonoperational
travel reduction of $1,000,000.
BILL LANGUAGE
Employment reductions.--The Committee has included bill
language, which is carried over from prior appropriations acts,
which specifies that the Commandant shall reduce both military
and civilian employment for the purpose of complying with
Executive Order 12839. This language was also included by the
House.
National security.--The Committee's recommendation includes
$300,000,000 transferred from the Department of Defense for
Coast Guard support of national security activities. 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 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.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Vessel traffic safety fairway, Santa Barbara/San
Francisco.--The Committee has included a general provision
(sec. 313) that would prohibit funds to plan, finalize, or
implement regulations establishing a vessel traffic safety
fairway which is less than 5 miles wide between the Santa
Barbara vessel traffic separation scheme and the San Francisco
vessel traffic separation scheme. This language has been
included in previous appropriations bills, and was also
included in the House's general provisions (sec. 313) bill
language.
Conveyance of lighthouse, Montauk Point, NY.--The Committee
has struck the House's general provision (sec. 339) which would
require the Secretary of Transportation to convey to the
Montauk Historical Association the U.S. Government's interests
in the light station Montauk Point, which is located in
Montauk, NY. The House has incorporated by reference a
provision of the Coast Guard Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1996 which passed the House of Representatives on May 9, 1995.
The Committee believes that, since this legislation is in
conference with the Senate's version of the Coast Guard
Authorization Act, there is no need for inclusion of this
general provision in the appropriations bill, and, therefore,
has deleted the provision, which was not requested by the
administration.
OTHER
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 and directs
the Secretary to provide $297,000 to continue efforts by the
Maritime Fire and Safety Administration to provide specialized
communications, fire fighting training and equipment, and to
implement the oilspill response contingency plan for the
Columbia River.
Abandoned barges, Houston, TX.--The House has included
$2,000,000 for the Coast Guard's removal of abandoned barges in
the Houston ship channel and the San Jacinto River, and further
directs that this funding is to be used only for that purpose.
It does not appear to the Committee that an additional
$2,000,000 has been included by the House for this activity and
assumes that this money would need to come out of the regular
operating expenses of the Coast Guard. The Committee takes
exception to the earmarking of a specific amount of funds to be
used exclusively for this purpose, and expects that the Coast
Guard will, at its discretion, remove what abandoned barges in
this area and in other areas of the country that it deems
obstructions to navigation and as causing unsafe conditions.
The Committee objects to earmarking a specific amount of
funding for this purpose for one specific site over all others.
The Committee directs the Coast Guard to identify alternatives
for removal in consultation with the Army Corps of Engineers
which is the Agency usually responsible for keeping harbors and
ports navigable.
Defense readiness.--Within the overall funding provided for
drug interdiction activities ($328,000,000), the House has
specifically earmarked funding of $34,000,000, based on a House
Government Reform and Oversight Committee report. While the
Committee may agree that the identified activities are of a
high priority, it believes that the Commandant may take the
House's recommendation under advisement, since it appears that
several of the activities are outdated missions. However, it
should be left to the Commandant's discretion how the drug
interdiction funding is to be distributed, and, therefore, the
Committee objects to the House's earmarking within this
activity.
Coast Guard auxiliary.--The House encouraged the Coast
Guard to continue to provide adequate funding for auxiliary
support, and was concerned about the adequacy of the
President's $10,000,000 request. However, the Committee
understands that the reduction of $1,500,000 from the fiscal
year 1996 level in management funds associated with the
auxiliary program is the result of business decisions resulting
in reorganizations, reductions in overhead, and leveraging
technology. Further, the Committee understands that the reduced
request for fiscal year 1997 funding in no way results from a
devaluation of, or reduction in the services provided by the
Coast Guard auxiliary. The auxiliary's 35,000 volunteers
provide a tremendous service to the recreational boating public
nationwide. In 1995, the auxiliary saved about 400 lives,
assisted another 20,000 people, and educated 330,000 people
through boating education courses. In the Pacific Northwest
region alone, they saved 15 lives, assisted another 800 people,
and educated 22,000 people--including over 11,000 children. The
Coast Guard auxiliary is an effective force multiplier for
their parent services.
Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Trust Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1996............................................ $329,875,000 $32,500,000 $362,375,000
Budget estimate, 1997........................................... 391,600,000 20,000,000 \1\411,600,000
House allowance................................................. 338,000,000 20,000,000 \2\ 358,000,00
0
Rescission.................................................. .............. .............. (3,755,000)
Committee recommendation \3\.................................... 375,060,000 20,000,000 395,060,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes estimated receipts of $20,000,000 from sale of Coast Guard property in Wildwood, NJ.
\2\ Excludes $29,600,000 in proposed asset sales.
\3\ Includes $1,960,000 of reprogrammed prior year funds.
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:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year House program Committee
1996 enacted 1997 estimate level allowance recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessels..................................... 167,600 237,000 205,600 227,960
Aircraft.................................... 12,000 21,400 18,300 \1\ 19,400
Other equipment............................. 49,200 46,700 39,900 46,200
Shore facilities and aids to navigation..... 88,875 59,500 47,950 \2\ 54,500
Personnel and related support............... 44,700 47,000 46,250 47,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. 362,375 411,600 358,000 395,060
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Of this amount, $360,000 is from reprogramming prior-year funds.
\2\ Of this amount, $1,600,000 is from reprogramming prior-year funds.
vessels
The Committee recommends $227,960,000 for vessel
acquisition and improvement. The projected allocation of these
funds is shown in the table below:
VESSELS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year House Committee
1997 estimate allowance recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acquire vessels and equipment:
Seagoing buoy tender [WLB] replacement...................... 59,500 50,000 59,000
Coastal buoy tender [WLM] replacement....................... 80,000 74,000 76,860
47-foot motor lifeboat [MLB] replacement project............ 26,000 26,000 26,000
82-foot WPB capability replacement.......................... 37,800 35,000 33,100
Follow-on for polar icebreaker replacement.................. 4,000 4,000 4,000
Buoy boat replacement project............................... 8,500 .............. 7,800
Survey and design--cutters and boats........................ 500 500 500
Configuration management.................................... 3,500 3,500 3,500
Surface search radar replacement project.................... 8,600 4,000 8,600
Motor surfboard [MSB] replacement........................... 1,100 1,100 1,100
Repair, renovate, or improve existing vessels and small boats:
210-foot medium-endurance cutter [WMEC], major maintenance
availability [MMA]......................................... 2,500 2,500 2,500
Polar class icebreaker reliability improvement project [RIP] 5,000 5,000 5,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total (new program level)............................... 237,000 205,600 227,960
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seagoing buoy tender [WLB] replacement.--The Coast Guard
plans to replace its 50-year-old fleet of seagoing buoy tenders
with up to 16 new tenders. The request of $59,500,000 for
fiscal year 1997 is to pay for the award of the first
production ship, and to cover additional costs such as the cost
of change orders and product escalation for the third, fourth,
and fifth option ships. According to recent estimates, the
contract for the first production ship will be awarded late in
fiscal year 1997. The House recommended $50,000,000 for this
project. According to recent estimates, however, this amount by
itself will not be enough for the Coast Guard to award the
production contract in fiscal year 1997, even if the bids are
received at the low end of the Government's cost estimates.
Based on the estimate that this project will have some
carryover at the end of fiscal year 1996, the Committee has
reduced the fiscal year 1997 level by $500,000, which is
$9,000,000 above the House's allowance.
Coastal buoy tender [WLM] replacement.--The Committee has
provided $76,860,000 for the coastal buoy tender replacement
program. This program replaces the Coast Guard's existing 133-
foot and 157-foot coastal buoy tenders with 14 new ships. The
Coast Guard's request of $80,000,000 for fiscal year 1997 was
to procure four new buoy tenders. Based on recent information
on the 1997 spending plans, it appears that the Coast Guard
should have $3,140,000 in unobligated carryovers that could be
used in fiscal year 1997 against this request. Therefore, the
Committee has reduced the funding level by that amount. The
House had made a similar type of reduction to $74,000,000 based
on a large unobligated balance in the account.
Coastal patrol boat/82-foot WPB replacement.--The Committee
has provided $33,100,000 for the coastal patrol boat
replacement program, which is a $700,000 reduction from the
amount requested for fiscal year 1997. This program would
replace the 82-foot coastal patrol boats which are over 30
years old with 31 new boats. The request for fiscal year 1997
was to procure six new boats. However, in a review of the
fiscal year 1997 spending plans, it appears as though the Coast
Guard can only obligate $33,100,000 of its original fiscal year
1997 request. This is because the contractor's bid came in
lower than originally estimated by the Coast Guard. Therefore,
the Committee's reduction should not impair or slow this
program.
Buoy boat replacement project.--The Coast Guard had
originally requested $8,500,000 in fiscal year 1997 to procure
five new buoy boats. Based on review of the 1997 spending
plans, it appears that the Coast Guard will have available in
1997 approximately $700,000 in unobligated carryovers that
could be used for the five new boat procurements. Therefore,
the Committee has reduced the request by that amount, and
recommends a level of $7,800,000. The House allowance included
no funding for this program, citing slippages in the program
due to termination of a boat building contract last year, and
believes that unobligated funds should be sufficient to
maintain the program during fiscal year 1997. However, in order
to stabilize the Coast Guard yard's work force so there will be
no break in production, the Committee has provided funding at
$7,800,000.
aircraft
For aircraft procurement, the Committee recommends
$19,400,000. Of this amount, $360,000 is made available through
reprogrammed resources. Funds for aircraft acquisitions are
distributed as follows:
AIRCRAFT
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year House Committee
1997 estimate allowance recommendation \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Traffic alert and collision avoidance system [TCAS]--phase
IV......................................................... 5,700 5,700 5,700
Global positioning system installation--phase VII........... 2,900 1,900 1,900
HC-130 engine conversion.................................... 8,800 6,800 7,800
HH-65A helicopter kapton rewiring........................... 2,000 3,500 2,000
HH-65A helicopter mission computer unit replacement......... 2,000 2,000 2,000
Asset sales \2\............................................. .............. -1,600 ..................
---------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 21,400 18,300 19,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Of this amount, $360,000 is from reprogramming of HH-65 gearbox funding originally provided in fiscal year
1995.
\2\ Offsets from VC-11A sale ($600,000) and HU-25 sale ($1,000,000).
Global positioning system installation, phase VII.--The
Committee has provided $1,900,000 for the global positioning
system [GPS] installation, which is the same amount recommended
by the House. This is the same level of funding that was
provided for GPS installation in fiscal year 1996.
HC-130 engine conversion.--The Committee has provided
$7,800,000 for the HC-130 engine conversion program, which is
$1,000,000 less than that requested, but $1,000,000 more than
provided by the House. This program seeks to improve the
reliability of the C-130's and T-56 engines through an upgrade
to a new series 3 engine version. The fiscal year 1997 request
was to cover the production and installation of 22 conversion
kits. This funding level would slow that program down only
slightly, in that the program will be phased in over 3 years.
HH-65 helicopter kapton rewiring.--The Committee has
provided the full amount requested for the HH-65 helicopter
kapton rewiring program, which is $1,500,000 less than that
recommended by the House, which directed the Coast Guard to
implement a faster replacement schedule.
Asset sales.--The Committee has not reduced the overall
funding level for aircraft procurement by assuming offsets from
the VC-11A sale ($600,000), and the HU-25 sale ($1,000,000), as
assumed by the House.
Reprogrammings.--Of the amount provided for the aircraft
procurement, $360,000 is from reprogramming of funds originally
provided in fiscal year 1995 for the HH-65 transmission gearbox
upgrade. It appears as though, after the conclusion of this
program, there will remain available at least $360,000 from
prior-year funds that could be used to offset the aircraft
funding level in fiscal year 1997.
other equipment
The Committee recommends $46,200,000. The following table
displays the project allocation:
OTHER EQUIPMENT
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year House Committee
1997 estimate allowance recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fleet logistics system [FLS].................................... 9,300 9,300 9,300
Marine information for safety and law enforcement [MISLE]....... 5,000 5,000 5,000
Global maritime distress/safety system--phase V................. 700 700 700
Vessel traffic services [VTS] 2000.............................. 6,000 .............. 5,500
Conversion of software applications............................. 6,000 6,000 6,000
Finance Center information system replacement................... 2,100 2,100 2,100
Communication system [COMMSYS] 2000............................. 4,000 4,000 4,000
Seagoing buoy tender [WLB] and coastal buoy tender [WLM] support
facility....................................................... 1,800 1,800 1,800
Personnel management information system/joint uniform military
pay system II.................................................. 1,600 800 1,600
Aviation logistics management information system [ALMIS]........ 4,800 4,800 4,800
National distress system modernization.......................... 1,000 1,000 1,000
VHF-FM high level site upgrade--phase III....................... 4,400 4,400 4,400
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 46,700 39,900 46,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessel traffic services [VTS] 2000.--The Committee has
reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Marine Board
report and directs the Coast Guard to examine options for the
first operational vessel traffic services [VTS] 2000 system
that minimizes the complexity necessary to prove the VTS 2000
concept. The Committee has long held the view that the scope of
the VTS 2000 project is too broad. The Coast Guard's plan for a
national VTS system should be reflective of the Marine Board's
proposal for a baseline system and phased implementation, which
will reduce acquisition cost and risk. This plan should include
outreach efforts with the maritime community and other
appropriate stakeholders. The Coast Guard shall also ensure
that VTS 2000 will be based on an open system architecture
maximizing use of commercial off-the-shelf equipment. The
unobligated balances of all funds appropriated to the VTS 2000
project in prior years shall remain available for project
expenditures.
Personnel management information system.--The Committee has
provided the full amount requested.
shore facilities and aids to navigation
The program level recommended is $54,500,000. Within this
amount, $1,600,000 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 House Committee
1997 estimate allowance recommendation \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shore--General:
Survey and design shore projects........................ 6,000 6,000 6,000
Minor AC&I shore construction projects.................. 4,000 4,000 4,000
Shore--Air stations: Mid-Atlantic Air Station consolidation
projects--phase II......................................... 1,300 1,300 1,300
Shore--Supply centers/support centers/yard: Baltimore, MD--
Coast Guard yard land-based ship handling facility......... 4,950 3,950 4,950
Support center Portsmouth--upgrade painting/sandblast
facility................................................... 2,550 2,000 2,550
Support center San Pedro--construct medical facility........ 3,700 3,700 3,700
Shore--Personnel support facilities: Public family quarters. 12,000 12,000 12,000
Shore--Groups/bases/stations/MSO's:
Station Juneau--renovate/expand station facili- ties... 2,000 2,000 2,000
Station Sabine--reconstruct/expand waterfront facilities 4,000 4,000 4,000
Coast Guard cutter Chippewa and Coast Guard cutter
Obion--relocate Owensboro moorings..................... 2,000 2,000 2,000
Base, San Juan, PR--reconstruction phase II............. 12,000 10,000 7,000
Aids to navigation facilities: Waterways aids-to-navigation
projects................................................... 5,000 5,000 5,000
Asset sales \2\............................................. .............. -8,000 ..................
---------------------------------------------------
Total................................................. 59,500 47,950 54,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $1,600,000 reprogramming of prior year's funding.
\2\ Sale of Upolu Point, HI, loran station site.
Cove Point Lighthouse, Maryland.--Within the account for
minor AC&I construction projects, $90,000 is made available for
repairs to the Cove Point Lighthouse, Maryland.
Coast Guard yard land-based ship handling facility.--The
Committee has provided the full amount for the Coast Guard ship
handling facility in Baltimore, MD, which is $4,950,000.
Providing the full amount requested for this facility results
in an appropriation that is $1,000,000 above the House
recommendation. The Coast Guard, in consultation with the
Appropriations Committees, has phased this project over a
period of time, which is of critical importance to the Coast
Guard and its ability to maintain, renovate, and modernize
their existing ships. Funding for this activity will be used
for the purchase of lift equipment and associated waterfront
work. Funding in fiscal year 1997 will be used for land-based
work associated with this project, and the Committee believes
it is necessary to provide the full amount requested for the
project to proceed in an orderly manner.
Base San Juan, PR--reconstruction phase II.--The Committee
has provided $7,000,000 for the San Juan, PR, base
reconstruction phase II, which is $5,000,000 below the request.
The Committee has made this reduction based on information that
the project has been rescoped, and that activities originally
planned for fiscal year 1997 would not be proceeding.
Therefore, the new funding that is necessary to keep the
project on schedule is $5,000,000, which has been provided by
the Committee.
Reprogrammings.--Of the total amount provided, $54,500,000
for shore facilities and aids to navigation, $1,600,000 is to
be derived from funds originally provided in fiscal year 1995
for the support center in Seattle, WA. Based on the latest
information, it appears that this project, when completed in
August 1996, will have an unobligated carryover of $1,600,000.
In 1995, Congress appropriated $10,300,000 to renovate the pier
for support center Seattle. In fiscal year 1996, Congress
reduced the funds available to approximately $9,900,000, and
the contract price was finally established at a little over
$7,200,000. Therefore, these funds can be reprogrammed without
harm.
PERSONNEL AND RELATED SUPPORT
The program level recommended is $47,000,000. Within the
amount provided, $850,000 shall be for core acquisition costs.
The Committee has provided the full amount requested for
personnel and related support, and has not reduced the direct
personnel cost by the $750,000 which was recommended by the
House. The House's reduction was premised on no funding being
provided for the VTS 2000 program, which had been terminated in
the House bill. Since the Committee has provided funding for
VTS 2000 to proceed, the restoration of the 20 staff-years
associated with the project was necessary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year House Committee
Personnel and related support 1997 estimate allowance recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct personnel costs.......................................... $46,150,000 $45,400,000 $46,150,000
Core acquisition costs.......................................... 850,000 850,000 850,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 47,000,000 46,250,000 47,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bill language
Wildwood, NJ, asset sale.--The Committee has not included
bill language which was in the House bill and was requested by
the administration that will allow the proceeds from the sale
of property in Wildwood, NJ, to be credited to this
appropriations account as an offsetting receipt, and stipulates
that such proceeds shall be included in the budget baseline, as
required by the Budget Enforcement Act. Inclusion of this bill
language saves $20,000,000 in budget authority and outlays.
One element of the Coast Guard's streamlining plan, the
Electronic Engineering Center in Wildwood, NJ, is scheduled to
be closed with an expected $20,000,000 in proceeds from sale of
the property to be credited as offsetting collections to the
``Acquisition, construction, and improvements'' account. The
Committee understands that the Coast Guard will follow
procedures consistent with the General Services Administration
property disposal process that permits screening and transfer
to other Federal agencies. Based on new information, it appears
that there will be interest from other Federal agencies for a
transfer of the property vice a sale. In absence of sufficient
collections, the Coast Guard appropriation should not be
decreased should disposal generate less than the expected
$20,000,000 in offsetting receipts.
Asset sales.--The bill includes language which was first
enacted in fiscal year 1996 which credits the ``Acquisition,
construction, and improvements'' appropriation the proceeds
derived from the sale or lease of the Coast Guard's surplus
real property. This provision was requested by the
administration in their fiscal year 1997 budget request.
The Senate does not agree with the House proposal to use
proceeds presumed from uncertain asset sales as offsetting
collections to fund the ``Acquisition, construction, and
improvements'' account in place of appropriated budget
authority. Specifically, the loran station Upolo Point
property, for which the House presumes proceeds of $8,000,000,
is subject to the Hawaiian Home Land Recovery Act which
requires that the land be conveyed back to the State of Hawaii
without sale. The Coast Guard needs funding it can depend upon
to carry out necessary projects. The Senate supports the
authority vested in the Commandant which allows the sale of
real property and specified operational assets, with proceeds
to be credited to the ``Acquisition, construction, and
improvements'' appropriation.
Rescissions.--The House has included bill language, not
requested by the administration, to rescind funds previously
appropriated for the vessel traffic services [VTS] 2000
program. The House recommends rescinding $355,000 of fiscal
year 1995 funding and $3,400,000 of fiscal year 1996 funding
that remain unobligated and are associated with this program.
The House recommended no additional funding for this activity
in fiscal year 1997.
Environmental Compliance and Restoration
Appropriations, 1996.................................... $21,000,000
Budget estimate, 1997................................... 25,000,000
House allowance......................................... 21,000,000
Committee recommendation
23,000,000
The Committee recommends funding of $23,000,000 to continue
the environmental restoration and compliance-related actions
throughout the Coast Guard.
These fiscal year 1997 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 and actions necessary
to bring Coast Guard shore facilities and vessels into
compliance with environmental laws and regulations.
The Senate has recommended a funding level of $23,000,000,
which is $2,000,000 above the fiscal year 1996 enacted level.
The House has fully funded the requested levels for site-
specific cleanup and restoration, $15,500,000. But, it has
reduced environmental compliance from the requested $3,834,000
to $2,500,000, and has reduced the personnel funding from the
requested $5,666,000 to $3,000,000. The Committee has restored
the personnel funding level to $5,666,000, the environmental
compliance activity to $2,834,000, and has reduced site-
specific funding to $14,500,000.
ISC Kodiak remediation funding.--The investigation and
potential cleanup of 34 sites on ISC Kodiak, as per the 1990
Resources Conservation Recovery Act consent order, goes well.
Eight of these sites have been closed and eight other sites
have been approved for no further action status. Due to reduced
levels of contamination anticipated, lower than expected costs
to meet consent order milestones, and successful ongoing
milestone negotiations with the regulatory bodies, annual
requirements for this project have been reduced from past
levels of $4,400,000 to $5,400,000 to about $3,000,000 to
$3,500,000. Given overall budget constraints and other demands
placed on the ``Environmental compliance and restoration''
appropriation, $2,600,000 will be adequate to continue this
remediation effort in fiscal year 1997.
Port Safety Development
Appropriations, 1996.................................... $15,000,000
Budget estimate, 1997...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation
5,000,000
The Committee has included $5,000,000 in additional 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 jeopardized 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.
Alteration of Bridges
Appropriations, 1996.................................... $16,000,000
Budget estimate, 1997................................... 2,000,000
House allowance......................................... 16,000,000
Committee recommendation
10,000,000
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 would 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 the Federal Highway Administration [FHWA], under
the continuing program oversight of the Coast Guard.
Funding of $2,000,000 is requested by the administration
for fiscal year 1997 to continue work on the Burlington
Northern Railroad bridge over the Mississippi River at
Burlington, IA.
The House provides funding for the Burlington, IA, bridge
as requested, and additional funds for:
New Orleans, LA, Florida Avenue, railroad/highway bridge......$7,000,000
Brunswick, GA, Sidney Lanier Highway Bridge
7,000,000
The Committee has provided $10,000,000 which includes
$2,000,000 for the Burlington Northern Railroad bridge at
Burlington, IA, and $8,000,000 for the Sidney Lanier Bridge at
Brunswick, GA.
Retired Pay
Appropriations, 1996.................................... $582,022,000
Budget estimate, 1997................................... 608,084,000
House allowance......................................... 608,084,000
Committee recommendation
608,084,000
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
30,161 in fiscal year 1997, as compared with an estimated
29,549 in fiscal year 1996 and 28,662 in fiscal year 1995.
The bill includes $608,084,000 for retired pay, which is
the same as the House allowance and the budget request.
Reserve Training
Appropriations, 1996.................................... $62,000,000
Budget estimate, 1997................................... 65,890,000
House allowance......................................... 65,890,000
Committee recommendation
65,890,000
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 $65,890,000 for Reserve
training. The amount provided is the same as the House
allowance and the President's request. The amount provided will
support a Selected Reserve Force of 8,000 members, the same
level as fiscal year 1996.
The Coast Guard is provided Reserve training funding as
follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President's Committee
Functional program element Fiscal year request (8000 recommendation
1996 levels SELRES) (8000 SELRES)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drill pay and benefits.......................................... $24,600,000 $26,097,000 $26,097,000
Full-time support personnel..................................... 19,400,000 20,134,000 20,134,000
Annual training program......................................... 9,700,000 10,646,000 10,646,000
District administration/training................................ 4,050,000 4,299,000 4,299,000
Recruiting...................................................... 1,500,000 1,783,000 1,783,000
O/M support to training facilities.............................. 1,575,000 1,690,000 1,690,000
Headquarters administration..................................... 1,175,000 1,241,000 1,241,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 62,000,000 65,890,000 65,890,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Trust Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1996............................................ $14,850,000 $3,150,000 $18,000,000
Budget estimate, 1997........................................... 15,280,000 5,020,000 20,300,000
House allowance................................................. 13,980,000 5,020,000 19,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................ 14,530,000 5,020,000 19,550,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 $19,550,000 for research, development,
test, and evaluation, which is $750,000 below the budget
request and $550,000 above the House allowance.
The Committee recommendation for funding distribution is as
follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Fiscal year 1997 House Committee
1996 estimate allowance recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program areas:
Search and rescue................................. $932,000 $1,872,000 $1,872,000 $1,872,000
Waterways safety.................................. 2,189,000 1,385,000 1,385,000 1,385,000
Marine safety..................................... 2,700,000 3,825,000 3,825,000 3,825,000
Ship structure committee.......................... ............ 437,000 223,000 223,000
Marine environmental protection................... 1,354,000 1,791,000 2,291,000 1,791,000
Maritime law enforcement.......................... 1,229,000 791,000 791,000 791,000
Safety and environmental compli- ance............ 2,318,000 2,652,000 2,452,000 2,452,000
Human resource management......................... 100,000 147,000 147,000 147,000
Command, control, computers, and intelligence..... 928,000 1,014,000 928,000 928,000
Technology base................................... 500,000 1,600,000 550,000 1,350,000
Multimission/administrative support............... 5,750,000 4,786,000 4,536,000 4,786,000
---------------------------------------------------------
Total......................................... 18,000,000 20,300,000 19,000,000 19,550,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee has made slight reductions only to the fiscal
year 1997 request for research and development. The first
reduction is in the ship structure committee, where the
Committee has reduced the support for the ship structure
committee from the requested level of $400,000 to $186,000,
which is the same level as that recommended by the House. In
the marine environmental protection area, the Committee has
provided the amount requested for the aquatic nuisance species
program, which is $200,000. The Committee has not provided the
additional unrequested funding of $500,000 recommended by the
House. In the environmental compliance area, the Committee
agrees with the House's recommendation and has reduced the
pollution prevention line item from the $700,000 requested to
$500,000. For command and control computers and intelligence,
the Committee agrees with the House's recommendation for the
advanced communication system line item, which reduces that
program from $350,000 to $264,000. In the technology base line
item, the Committee has reduced the program by $250,000. The
subactivity future technology assessments has been reduced from
$400,000 to $200,000, and the selected projects line item has
been reduced from $800,000 to $755,000. In the multimission
administrative support line item, the Committee has provided
the full amount requested, which includes $2,571,000 for
administration and personnel.
Boat Safety
(aquatic resources trust fund)
Appropriations, 1996.................................... $20,000,000
Budget estimate, 1997 \1\............................... (45,000,000)
House allowance \2\..................................... 35,000,000
Committee recommendation \2\............................ 10,000,000
\1\ The President's budget proposed, contingent on enactment of
legislation, that $45,000,000 be available as a direct (mandatory)
program and no discretionary funds.
\2\ In addition to the appropriation of general funds, the House and
Senate assume $10,000,000 in mandatory trust 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 general fund discretionary funding in 1997.
The President's request proposed to provide all funding for
the State boating safety grant program by increasing from
$10,000,000 to $45,000,000 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).
The Senate-passed Coast Guard authorization bill supports
the administration's proposal for funding this activity through
direct, mandatory spending.
The House provides $35,000,000 in general funds and assumes
an additional $10,000,000 in permanent indefinite
appropriations from the Clean Vessel Act of 1992, Public Law
102-587, for a total program level of $45,000,000. Under
current law, all boating safety grant funds are distributed by
formula.
The Committee has provided $10,000,000 in new
appropriations and assumes an additional $10,000,000 in funding
from the Clean Vessel Act of 1992, for a total program level of
$20,000,000. In addition, another $35,000,000 may be realized
from the ``Sport fish restoration'' account upon passage of the
Coast Guard authorization act.
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Summary of Fiscal Year 1997 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 1997 amounts to $8,200,657,000 including $75,000,000 in
user fees credited to the ``Operations'' appropriation and a
$1,400,000,000 obligation limitation on the use of contract
authority for the Airport Grants Program. The following table
summarizes the Committee's recommendations:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Program Fiscal year 1997 budget House Committee
1996 enacted estimate allowance recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations..................................... \1\ 4,645,712 4,918,269 4,900,000 4,899,957
User fees...................................... .............. -150,000 -30,000 -75,000
Facilities and equipment....................... \2\ 1,934,883 1,788,700 1,800,000 1,788,700
Research, engineering, and development......... 185,698 195,700 185,000 187,000
Grants-in-aid for airports \3\................. 1,450,000 1,350,000 1,300,000 1,400,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................... 8,216,343 8,102,669 8,155,000 8,200,657
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reductions pursuant to sections 327 and 349 of Public Law 104-50.
\2\ Excludes $68,811,000 rescission pursuant to Public Law 104-50; and section 31002 of Public Law 104-134.
\3\ Limitation on obligations.
Operations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Trust User fees Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1996........................ $2,422,852,900 $2,222,859,100 ............... $4,645,712,000
Budget estimate, 1997....................... 2,025,667,000 2,742,602,000 $150,000,000 4,918,269,000
House allowance............................. 2,127,398,000 2,742,602,000 30,000,000 4,900,000,000
Committee recommendation.................... 2,082,355,000 2,742,602,000 75,000,000 4,899,957,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, commercial space, medical and
engineering, and development programs.
The bill includes a total of $4,899,957,000 for the
operations activities of the Federal Aviation Administration,
of which $2,742,602,000 shall be derived from the airport and
airway trust fund and $75,000,000 offsetting collections
derived from user fees. The account total is $254,245,000 more
than the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1996.
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 eight
main areas consistent with FAA's reorganization to bring
together functions and activities that support the provision of
a single, major service and to establish a single executive
responsible for that service.
Air traffic services.--The operations and maintenance of
the national air traffic control and navigation system and the
installation of air traffic and navigation equipment. Air
traffic services consists of five subactivities: air traffic,
NAS logistics, systems maintenance, leased telecommunications,
and flight inspections.
Aviation regulation and certifications.--Promotes aviation
safety and ensures compliance with safety and certification
standards for air carriers, commercial operators, air agencies,
airmen, and civil aircraft, including aircraft registration;
develops and administers safety standards for airworthiness of
aircraft and components. Includes accident investigation,
aviation medicine, aviation rulemaking, and the suspected
unapproved parts office.
Civil 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.
Research and acquisition.--Responsible for all research,
prototyping, system development, and acquisition activities.
Includes the William J. Hughes Technical Center.
Administration of airports.--Provides for the
administration of airport grants and the safety inspection and
certification of the Nation's airports.
Commercial space transportation.--Facilitates and promotes
commercial space launches by the U.S. private sector and
licenses and regulates commercial launches, launch site
operations, and certain payloads.
Administration.--Funds the administrative functions that
establish policy and direct and develop programs in the areas
of FAA aircraft use and management, building space management,
budget and accounting, business information and consultation,
human resource management, and technical and management
training; includes the regional administrators and the
Aeronautical Center Director.
Staff offices.--Funds the Office of the Administrator and
the Deputy Administrator, and offices that report directly to
the Administrator and provide executive direction; operations
and communications control; civil rights; government and
industry affairs; policy, planning, and international aviation;
legal counsel; and public affairs.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendation in comparison to the budget estimate and House
allowance:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
1996 program 1997 budget House Committee
level \1\ estimate allowance recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air traffic services........................... 3,623,132 3,827,137 3,816,471 3,802,419
Aviation regulation and certification.......... 437,848 487,911 487,289 487,605
Aviation security.............................. 67,453 71,921 71,921 71,921
Research and acquisition....................... 75,781 78,034 78,034 78,034
Administration of airports..................... 41,328 45,367 43,367 43,250
Commercial space transportation................ 5,757 6,169 6,049 6,049
Administration................................. 324,809 332,499 329,865 332,499
Staff offices.................................. 67,624 69,230 66,430 68,230
Accountwide adjustments........................ .............. .............. 574 9,950
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................... 4,643,732 4,918,269 4,900,000 4,899,957
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $1,012,000 carryover from prior years.
air traffic services
The Committee recommends a total of $3,802,419,000 for the
operation and maintenance of the national air traffic control
and flight service system. This is $24,718,000 less than the
budget estimate, but $179,287,000 above the fiscal year 1996
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 include:
Air traffic.--The Committee recommends $2,265,790,000 and
24,183 FTE's. The Committee's recommendation provides a net
increase of 250 additional air traffic controllers, and has
provided the full amount requested for overall employment
levels.
--Air traffic detailees.--The Committee's recommendation
under air traffic concurs in the House's reduction of
$3,500,000 associated with air traffic detailees.
Approximately 450 air traffic controllers work outside
of the controller work force, and, therefore, are not
available for controlling air traffic. Estimated costs
of the detailee program are $34,000,000 a year. The
Committee recognizes that it is important that FAA
retain the ability to detail controllers to other
positions, including having their input available for
work groups, special project teams, and in some cases,
headquarters staff. However, the Committee concurs in
the House's observation which reduces the detail
positions by approximately 10 percent, which results in
a savings of $3,500,000.
--Department of Labor wage determinations.--The Committee
does not concur with the House's reduction of $500,000
for Department of Labor wage determinations. The
Committee understands that in September 1995, FAA
requested a waiver from the Service Contract Act for
contract tower locations. However, there has been no
formal response from the Department of Labor, nor have
dates been set for meetings to discuss options to the
Service Contract Act. Since there is no agreement on an
exemption for contracted towers, the Committee believes
it is premature to assume savings at this time.
--Aviation safety reporting system.--The Committee has not
included the additional funding of $1,000,000 which was
recommended by the House for the aviation safety
reporting system. Additional funding for the safety
reporting system is contained in the ``Research''
account.
--Herndon, VA, lease.--The Committee has not followed the
House's recommendation which would transfer $3,300,000
to the ``Operations'' account from the ``Facilities and
equipment'' account. The House believed that this would
more accurately reflect the nature of the costs being
incurred at the Herndon, VA, facility.
--New York/New Jersey area controllers.--The Committee is
aware of the severe staffing and equipment problems
within the air traffic control system in the New York/
New Jersey metropolitan region, which results in
increased delays and inefficiencies. The Committee has
provided requested funding for 250 additional
controllers and directs that adequate staffing with the
level of expertise needed be provided to the FAA. The
Committee encourages the Administrator to recruit
controllers from lower level towers in the region to
serve higher level towers in the region. The Committee
also directs the Administrator to report to the
Committee by April 1, 1997, on the initiation of a
local recruiting effort in the New York/New Jersey
region.
--Juneau, AK.--The Committee has included $200,000 for
weather/wind information at the Juneau International
Airport, AK.
National airspace system logistics support.--The Committee
recommends $182,580,000 for this subactivity including 1,195
FTE's.
The funding provided for the national airspace system
logistics support activity is the full amount requested by the
administration for fiscal year 1997, and is the amount provided
in the House allowance. Within the funds provided, the
Committee expects that site surveys and monumenting at rural
airports in Alaska will be conducted to help facilitate GPS
implementation.
Maintenance of air traffic control system.--The Committee
recommends $960,246,000 and 9,616 FTE's for this budget
subactivity.
The Committee has reduced the amount requested for
maintenance by $4,376,000. These cuts are associated primarily
in contractor support and maintenance activities that were
double counted in the submission of the fiscal year 1997 budget
request. The systems maintenance reductions are associated with
the following subactivities:
Gemini project, software maintenance.................... -$1,000,000
Remote maintenance monitoring/contractor support........ -300,000
Multivoice recorders contractor technicians............. -200,000
Aeronautical data link.................................. -231,000
ASR-9 software maintenance.............................. -650,000
Radio control equipment contractor maintenance.......... -200,000
Maintenance processor/software.......................... -597,000
Precision runway monitors/contractor support............ -1,198,000
Leased telecommunication services.--The Committee
recommends $333,935,000 for this budget subactivity.
FAA's leased telecommunications request for fiscal year
1997 ($350,777,000) represents a $32,589,000 increase over the
fiscal year 1996 level. While the Committee understands the
importance of having a growing telecommunications capability
available to meet new national airspace system [NAS]
requirements, the Committee believes that it may not be the
best use of limited taxpayer dollars to increase investments in
leased telecommunications when FAA-owned telecommunication
resources sit idle.
The radio communications link [RCL], which is owned by FAA,
is one of the largest microwave networks in the country. RCL is
supposed to reduce the need for leased telecommunications
services and is supposed to be a primary backup for air traffic
control. However, RCL is greatly underutilized. Designed to
carry telecommunications traffic over 15,000 circuits, as of
April 1996, FAA is only using a little over 2,000 circuits--a
13-percent utilization rate.
Because 87 percent of FAA's own RCL telecommunications
resources sit idle, the Committee directs FAA to report to the
Congress by March 30, 1997, on its plans to transition some
leased telecommunication services to RCL. The plans should
identify all essential, backup, and administrative services
presently leased that can be transitioned to RCL and the leased
cost savings that could be eliminated from FAA's future
budgets. Since FAA expects a need for additional
telecommunications to meet new NAS requirements, the plan
should also identify the new requirements that will be
accommodated by RCL.
Overall, the Committee has reduced the request for leased
telecommunication services by $16,842,000. Of this reduction,
$5,000,000 is associated with the Committee's direction that
FAA transfer to the radio communications link as much of the
existing workload as possible to better fully utilize that
resource. Also, the Committee concurs with the House's transfer
of $8,600,000 from the telecommunications support line within
operations to the facilities and equipment line. Since this
system is still under development and has recently experienced
program slippages due to the awarding of the WAAS contract to
new parties, it is more appropriate that costs associated with
this program be shown in the ``Facilities and equipment''
appropriation. The Committee has reduced the request by another
$500,000 for costs that were originally projected for the
consolidation of FAA's Chicago terminal radar approach control
program. It appears that these costs will come in under the
original budget projection. Funding is also reduced for the
aeronautical data link program by $2,742,000. According to
recent reports, the requirements in the aeronautical data
program can be reduced because FAA will be using more efficient
FAA switching networks to provide the communications channel
between tower and aircraft.
Flight inspection.--The Committee recommends $59,868,000
and 580 FTE's for this activity which is the full amount
requested.
aviation regulation and certification
The Committee recommends $487,605,000 and 5,301 full-time
permanent positions for this activity.
Funding provided for aviation regulation and certification
is an increase of $49,757,000 over fiscal year 1996. The
Committee fully funds the requested employment increases for
administrative support (+152), airworthiness inspectors (+54),
airline operations inspectors (+100), certification engineers
and pilots (+75), and manufacturing certification inspectors
(+29). The Committee, however, has reduced the Office of
Rulemaking by $306,000 as opposed to the reduction of $622,000
in the House allowance.
civil aviation security
The Committee recommends $71,921,000 and 777 FTE's for this
budget activity.
The Committee has fully funded the civil aviation security
program, which is also the amount provided under the House
allowance. This recommendation allows for a 6.6-percent
increase over the fiscal year 1996 level.
research and acquisition
The Committee recommends $78,034,000 and 697 FTE's for this
budget activity, which is a 3-percent increase over the fiscal
year 1996 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 $43,250,000 and 467 FTE's for this activity.
Under the Committee's recommendation, the administration of
airports program would be reduced $2,117,000 from the requested
level for fiscal year 1997. The Committee has not included
funding for the requested 26-person increase in staff-years.
The Committee, due to budget constraints, cannot fund the
request at this particular time and sees no immediate need to
do so. The Committee agrees with the House observation that,
since there are no new programmatic initiatives proposed by the
FAA, additional staffing for this office is not justified at
this time.
COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION
The Committee recommends $6,049,000 and 30 FTE's for this
activity.
The Committee's recommendation for the Commercial Space
Transportation Office is the same as the House allowance. The
Committee has not funded the additional three positions
requested in the fiscal year 1997 request, and holds staffing
levels to the fiscal year 1996 level.
administration
The Committee recommends $332,499,000 and 2,016 FTE's for
this budget activity. The Committee has fully funded the
administration's request for fiscal year 1997 in the
administration activity level. The Committee does not concur
with a number of House recommendations in this activity.
Funding for the air traffic systems maintenance training was
provided in the air traffic services activity and has not been
transferred to the administration activity.
Mid-America Aviation Resource Consortium.--The Committee
does not concur with the House's earmark of $1,700,000 for the
Mid-America Aviation Resource Consortium. In order to fund the
facility in Minnesota, the House has transferred funds out of
the air traffic controller training program, which was to be
conducted at the FAA's own in-house facility. The Committee
does not agree with this redirection of work, and refers to the
conference report that accompanied the fiscal year 1996 bill
(H. Rept. 104-286). In that report, under FAA operations, it
was stated, ``The conferees agree to provide $250,000 for
continued support of the Mid-America Aviation Resource
Consortium as proposed by the House, but intend that this be
the final year of Federal support for this facility unless
requested in the President's budget.'' Funding for this
facility was not specifically requested in the administration's
budget, and given that Congress has supported this facility for
a number of years by funding above that requested in any of the
administrations' budgets, the Committee believes that as a
successful program, it should competitively bid for training
contracts with the FAA and no longer needs nor warrants a
special earmark.
Personnel systems streamlining.--The Committee does not
agree with the House's action which would reduce funding for
the personnel system by 10 percent. The Committee has,
therefore, provided the full amount requested.
staff offices
The Committee recommends $68,230,000 and 584 FTE's for this
budget activity, a reduction of $1,000,000 from the requested
amount.
The Committee has reduced the request for staff offices by
$1,000,000 and concurs with the House's observation that this
decrease should come from the foreign affairs administrative
support area. Since the submission of the fiscal year 1997
budget, FAA's estimate of requirements in this area have been
reduced after consultation with the Department of State.
The Committee has not provided the additional $200,000
recommended by the House in additional funding for monitoring
the workers' compensation program, nor has it reduced
headquarters staffing by the $2,000,000 which was recommended
by the House.
ACCOUNTWIDE ADJUSTMENTS
Dangerous goods cargo security program.--The Committee has
provided $9,950,000 above that requested by the administration
for a dangerous goods and cargo security program. Global air
transportation of hazardous materials has been growing at a
steady rate of approximately 7 percent per year. The majority
of these goods (60 percent) are being transported on passenger
carrying equipment, and according to the FAA, the report of
incidents in air transportation associated with this type of
cargo has increased by 122 percent since 1991. The recent
ValuJet accident and dangerous trends prompted a critical
review by the FAA of the adequacy of its current procedures and
policies for reducing the risks created by the transportation
of hazardous materials in the air. Although FAA, with its given
resources, monitors the compliance of air carriers to existing
hazardous materials rules and regulations, it is estimated that
almost 80 percent of the problems associated with this type of
cargo originate with shippers. The Committee believes that the
traveling public needs an acceptable level of safety that can
only be achieved not only with air carrier inspections, but
also targeted inspections at freight forwarders, repair
stations, and commercial shippers. Therefore, the Committee has
included the $9,950,000 above the fiscal year 1997 request to
address these problems. It is expected that under this funding
level FAA will hire approximately 130 people to expand the
current inspector, security, and legal work force, to target
key areas of activity to control hazardous materials shipments.
The Committee has not assigned this funding nor the positions
to a particular activity within FAA, and expects FAA to report
back to the Committee as soon as possible as to how it intends
to use the additional funding provided, including the number of
new persons hired, for what activities they will be hired, and
a summarized work plan of how the new personnel will be put to
work beginning in fiscal year 1997.
BILL LANGUAGE
Offsetting collections.--The Committee has included bill
language within the FAA ``Operations'' account to allow the
agency to collect up to $75,000,000 in offsetting collections.
This provision is consistent with the Senate authorization bill
which authorizes the Federal Aviation Administration to charge
overflight fees to carriers who use U.S. territorial airspace
and air traffic services, but do not actually land or take off
from U.S. territory. The offsetting collections would be
deposited into the FAA ``Operations'' account for use by the
agency without further appropriation. In addition, the
Committee assumes additional fees for obstruction evaluation.
The House's bill language would allow up to $30,000,000 in user
fees to be credited to the appropriation as offsetting
collections. The House directs that the only additional user
fees which are authorized are those attributable to services
provided to aircraft that neither take off from nor land in the
United States.
Second career training program.--The Committee has included
bill language which was included in the President's budget
request and was also contained in the House bill which
prohibits the use of appropriated funds for the second career
training program. This prohibition has been carried in annual
appropriations acts for many years.
Sunday premium pay.--The bill retains a provision, first
included in the fiscal year 1995 appropriations bill, which
prohibits FAA from paying Sunday premium pay, except in those
cases where the individual actually worked on a Sunday. This
provision is identical to that which was in effect for fiscal
years 1995 and 1996. It has been included in the House bill,
and was requested by the administration for fiscal year 1997.
Manned auxiliary flight service stations.--The Committee
has included bill language which was requested by the
administration to prohibit the use of funds for operating a
manned auxiliary flight service station in the contiguous
United States. There is no funding provided in the
``Operations'' account for such stations in fiscal year 1997.
The House also included this language, as requested by the
administration.
Commercial space transportation.--The Committee has
included language which prohibits the use of any funds from the
airport and airway trust fund for the support of the operations
and activities of the Associate Administrator for Commercial
Space Transportation. This prohibition is included in the House
bill, and was requested by the administration.
general provisions
Passenger manifest.--The bill contains a limitation (sec.
316) which has been contained in previous appropriations acts
prohibiting the Department of Transportation from issuing a
final rule on an international passenger manifest program that
applies to only U.S. carriers. The general provision is the
same as that contained in the House bill, section 316.
O'Hare Airport slots.--The bill contains a general
provision (sec. 319) first included in the fiscal year 1995
appropriations bill, which prohibits funding that would
implement or enforce regulations that would result in slot
allocations for international carrier operations for O'Hare
Airport access which are in excess of the number of slots
allocated to and scheduled by that carrier on the first day of
the calendar year 1993 winter season.
Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development.--The bill
contains a general provision (sec. 320) which has been carried
in previous years and is recommended by the House. This
provision would prohibit the use of any funds in this act to
compensate for more than 335 technical staff-years at the
federally funded research and development center which is
contracted between the Federal Aviation Administration and the
Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development.
Denver International Airport.--The Committee has included a
general provision (sec. 324), recommended by the House, which
prohibits the use of any funds for the planning, engineering,
design, or construction of a sixth runway at the Denver
International Airport. This provision, however, shall not apply
when the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
determines and certifies in writing that safety conditions
warrant the obligation and use of such funds.
other
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 the current 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. Despite report
language last year, the Committee understands that FAA and the
Labor Department still have not met to resolve the wage
determination situation at contract towers. 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.
Ogden-Hinckley Municipal Airport.--Ogden-Hinckley serves as
the primary reliever and weather divert for Salt Lake City
International Airport. The Committee, in the Senate report
accompanying the fiscal year 1996 Transportation appropriations
bill, directed the FAA to give priority consideration to the
grant request for the upgrade of terminal facilities at Ogden-
Hinckley Municipal Airport to meet the security needs of
passengers in fulfilling its role as a weather divert
destination and to begin to prepare the facility for the
transportation needs associated with the 2002 Winter Olympics.
The Committee acknowledges FAA's responsiveness to its
directive in facilitating the approval of Ogden-Hinckley's
grant request for phase 1 of the existing terminal upgrade.
To further address security needs, operations capabilities,
and passenger handling in its role as a weather divert and to
prepare to handle the system demands that will be associated
with the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, the Committee directs FAA
to give priority consideration to the grant requests for
security fencing, for construction of a helipad, and completion
of phase 2 of the existing terminal upgrade at Ogden-Hinckley
Municipal Airport.
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.
Colorado Springs, CO.--The limitations on obligations for
airport development and planning grants are intended to
continue the important tasks of enhancing airport safety,
ensuring that airport standards are met, maintaining existing
airport capacity, and developing additional capacity. The
Committee notes that the Colorado Springs Airport, in Colorado
Springs, CO, is one of the fast growing major airports in the
country. Therefore, the Committee urges that priority be given
to grant applications involving the construction and/or
rehabilitation of taxiways for the Colorado Springs Airport.
Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport.--In fiscal years 1995
and 1996, the Committee endorsed expeditious consideration of a
multiyear letter of intent for the Northwest Arkansas Regional
Airport. The Committee still encourages the Federal Aviation
Administration to consider a letter of intent, or any other
advanced funding mechanism that allows for future reimbursement
of all allowable costs related to the approved project. The
region's existing airport will not be able to adequately meet
projected future demands because of the area's profound growth
in population and economic activity. The Committee feels that
this project will enhance the systemwide airport capacity.
Salisbury/Wicomico County Regional Airport.--The Committee
urges the FAA to expedite consideration of the Salisbury/
Wicomico County (MD) Regional Airport application to the FAA
Contract Tower Program.
Sanford-Lee County, NC.--The Federal Aviation
Administration is directed to accelerate construction funding
of the new Sanford-Lee County, NC, airport project, which has
been designated a reliever airport by the FAA. The Committee
directs the FAA, other considerations notwithstanding, to
provide funding so that the project will be completed by 1999.
Further, the Committee understands that this acceleration of
funding will help this project stay within the projected costs.
New Orleans International Airport.--The Committee
understands that New Orleans International Airport [NOIA] has
filed an application for a letter of intent for multiyear
funding for the construction of a new north-south parallel
runway for NOIA, which is needed to accommodate present and
future traffic demands in the Louisiana/Mississippi region and
the anticipated increase to traffic due to cargo traffic
related to international trade. The airport intends to
demonstrate that the local share of this project will be made
through the continuation of the State transportation tax and
passenger facility charges and has projected substantial
investment savings over the anticipated 30-year life of the
runway. The Committee recognizes the large operational savings
that would be derived by the construction of the new parallel
runway and the future importance of NOIA as an intermodal
center for commerce, and, therefore, recommends that the FAA
consider a letter of intent with NOIA.
Airport Improvement Program [AIP] distribution.--In a time
of diminished financial resources, the Committee appreciates
the FAA's efforts to create a practical method of distributing
limited AIP dollars to numerous airports for noise mitigation
programs by restricting the maximum funding level for noise
programs at each airport to $5,000,000 per year. The Committee
is concerned, however, that this new rule does not take into
account the FAA's previous commitments to existing programs or
the actual needs of each airport. Therefore, the FAA is
encouraged to take into account specific needs of airports, and
especially to honor prior commitments made by airports to
communities in reliance on the Federal noise program.
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 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 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 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.
South Jersey Transportation Authority/Atlantic City
Airport.--The Committee is aware that the FAA's planned
transfer of ownership of airport certificate 139, runways,
taxiways, and other properties to the South Jersey
Transportation Authority will create a hardship on the Atlantic
City International Airport. The Committee directs the FAA
Administrator to work with the SJTA to ensure that sufficient
Federal funds are available for runway repairs and other
necessary improvements prior to the transfer of the
certificate.
Philadelphia International Airport.--The Committee
understands that an application for multiyear funding 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. Noting the constraints on its
budget, the Committee commends the FAA for having already
provided several discretionary grants to ensure that this
runway project continues to make progress. Given that capacity
constraints have caused considerable delays at the airport,
leading to annual costs in the millions of dollars, the
Committee recommends that the FAA enter into a letter of intent
with the project sponsor for construction of the runway
project.
Lancaster Airport, PA.--The Committee commends to the FAA's
attention the growing need for a runway extension project at
the Lancaster, PA, airport. The Lancaster Airport lacks 1,000-
foot extended runway safety areas (overruns) which are required
by the FAA. As a result, most corporate aircraft are limited to
60 percent of their useful load. The Committee notes that
Lancaster County has a rapidly growing population and that in
conjunction with increasing congestion at surrounding air
carrier facilities, there is a pressing need to extend runway
8-26 in order to provide a safer, more efficient environment
for aircraft operators. This extension project should also
contribute to economic growth in the Lancaster region.
Accordingly, the Committee recommends the FAA provide the
necessary funding for the environmental assessment of Lancaster
Airport's proposed runway extension project.
Diamond Head FAA combined center radar approach control
[CERAP] relocation.--The relocation of the Diamond Head
combined center radar approach control [CERAP] has been pending
before the Congress since 1992. In 1992, the Congress approved
the FAA's request to reprogram funds designated for the
expansion of the Diamond Head facility in exchange for a
commitment from the FAA to fund the relocation of the facility
out of Diamond Head. Despite this commitment, the Congress
found it necessary in fiscal year 1994 to instruct the FAA to
fund the relocation of its facility out of Diamond Head crater.
In fiscal year 1995, the Congress instructed the FAA to
complete the site acquisition for this relocation. In response
to the FAA's continuing lack of progress toward fulfilling
these mandates, in fiscal year 1996, the Congress directed the
FAA to prepare a report on what specific steps it will take to
acquire a new site for this facility and complete its
relocation.
The Committee is concerned that the FAA is now considering
reducing the operations and personnel of the CERAP rather than
relocating existing operations and personnel as originally
contemplated. Accordingly, the Committee directs the FAA to
continue to pursue the relocation of existing operations and
personnel to another location on Oahu.
Southwest Florida International Airport [RSW], Fort Myers,
FL.--According to the FAA's aviation system capacity plan, RSW
is the third fastest growing airport in the country. Over the
last 10 years, enplanements at RSW have grown at 9.2 percent
annually with a projected future growth rate of 8 percent as
compared to the national growth rate of 3.2 percent.
Consequently, RSW has often found itself in the position of
accommodating up to 27 overnight aircraft with only 14 gates.
This has required closing portions of the only parallel taxiway
at the airport, creating safety concerns and airline delays.
The State of Florida and the Lee County Airport Authority have
committed long-term State and local resources for enhancing the
airport capacity. The Committee recognizes the need for RSW's
expansion project to serve this rapidly growing region.
Therefore, the Committee directs FAA to give priority
consideration to RSW's request for airport improvement
discretionary funds to continue its capital expansion program
to meet future air service needs
Computer reservation system [CRS].--The Committee is
concerned with the Department's continuing inaction on the
rulemaking petition filed in October 1994 by Alaska Airlines
requesting that the Department amend its computer reservation
system [CRS] regulations to prevent the impositions of CRS
contractual provisions mandating a uniform CRS participation
level. Although the Department's most recent Federal Register
publication of its semiannual rulemaking agenda indicates that
the Department has decided to issue a proposed rule to prohibit
such mandatory parity clauses, no proposed rule has been
published. Mandatory parity clauses compel airlines to purchase
services they do not need and consequently impose unnecessary
cost on both the airlines and consumers. The Committee,
therefore, directs the Department to initiate a rulemaking on
this issue to promptly address and resolve this problem.
Facilities and Equipment
(Airport and Airway Trust Fund)
Appropriations, 1996.................................... $1,934,883,000
Rescission \1\...................................... -60,000,000
Budget estimate, 1997................................... 1,788,700,000
House allowance......................................... 1,800,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,788,700,000
\1\ Rescission pursuant to Public Law 104-50, excludes rescission of
$8,811,000 pursuant to section 31002 of Public Law 104-134.
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 1996 CIP plan 1991 CIP 1993 CIP 1995 CIP 1996 CIP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced automation system [AAS] 1990 1991 1991 ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) 1994 2001 2004 ( \1\ ) ( \1\ )
Display system replacement
[DSR]...................... .......... .......... .......... 1998 1998 .......... .......... .......... 2000 2000
Standard terminal automation
replacement system [STARS]. .......... .......... .......... 1998 ( \2\ ) .......... .......... .......... 2003 ( \2\ )
Tower control computer
complex [TCCC]............. .......... .......... .......... 1997 ( \3\ ) .......... .......... .......... 2000 ( \3\ )
Air route surveillance radar
[ARSR-4]....................... 1988 1993 1994 1995 1996 1991 1996 1996 1997 1997
Airport surface detection
equipment [ASDE-3]............. 1987 1992 1993 1993 1993 1990 1994 1996 1999 1999
Automated weather observing
system [AWOS].................. 1986 1989 1989 1989 1989 1990 1997 1997 1997 2000
Central weather processor [CWP]. 1990 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1998 \4\ 1992 \4\ 1993 \4\ 1993
Flight service automation system
[FSAS]......................... 1984 1991 1991 1991 1991 1989 1995 1994 1995 1995
Mode S.......................... 1988 1993 1994 1994 1994 1993 1996 1996 1996 1998
Radio microwave link [RML]
replacement and expansion...... 1985 1986 1986 1986 1986 1989 1994 1993 1993 1993
Terminal doppler weather radar
[TDWR]......................... ( \5\ ) 1993 1994 1994 1994 ( \5\ ) 1996 1996 \6\ 1996 ( \7\ )
Voice switching and control
system [VSCS].................. 1989 1995 1995 1995 1995 1992 1997 1997 1997 1997
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The AAS Program has been restructured into three areas: En route [DSR], terminal [STARS], and tower [TCCC].
\2\ STARS schedule is currently being rebaselined.
\3\ TCCC schedule is currently being rebaselined to reflect the incorporation of surface management advisory [SMA].
\4\ 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.
\5\ The TDWR was not included in the 1983 NAS plan.
\6\ Schedule under review for last-site implementation.
\7\ TDWR last site implementation indefinite due to site availability and acquisition problems.
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 radar Problems with the radar's development
[ARSR-4]. and 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. First
site implementation delay occurred due
to interface problems.
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. Last site implementation delay
occurred because communications funding
shortfalls and installation delays of
the communications infrastructure to
deliver weather information.
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.
Program implementation is complete.
Mode S........................ Problems in developing hardware and
software during initial phases delayed
the system, and software problems
caused a delay in first-site
implementation. Implementation of the
last site has been moved to 1998 due to
en route interface problems.
Radar microwave link [RML] In the early stages, site acquisition
replacement and expansion. and 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 radar Site availability and land acquisition
[TDWR]. problems have delayed last-site
implementation. Last site
implementation remains indefinite. TDWR
has experienced schedule delay because
of site availability and land
acquisition problems.
Voice switching and control Early delays were due to the two
system [VSCS]. prototype 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 $1,788,700,000 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 1997 budget House allowance Committee
estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engineering, development, test, and evaluation:
En route programs:
Aviation weather services improvements................. $27,997,000 $27,997,000 $19,942,000
En Route Automation Program............................ 106,500,000 89,155,000 96,500,000
Oceanic automation system.............................. 40,600,000 40,600,000 25,600,000
Next generation UHF air/ground communication system.... 2,090,000 2,090,000 2,090,000
Voice switching and control system [VSCS]--EDT&E....... 13,300,000 13,300,000 13,300,000
------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, en route programs.......................... 190,487,000 173,142,000 157,432,000
================================================
Terminal programs:
Terminal digital radar (ASR-11)........................ 23,300,000 ............... 20,000,000
Terminal Automation Program............................ 50,600,000 43,500,000 50,600,000
NAS infrastructure management system [NIMS]............ 11,600,000 ............... 6,000,000
Weather systems processor [WSP]........................ 8,055,000 ............... 8,055,000
Airport surface target identification system [ATIDS]... 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, terminal programs........................ 97,555,000 47,500,000 88,655,000
================================================
Landing and navigational aids programs:
Local area augmentation system [LAAS] for GPS.......... 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000
Wide area augmentation system [WAAS]................... .............. 117,100,000 83,100,000
National satellite test bed............................ .............. 11,500,000 6,004,735
------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, landing and navigational aids programs..... 6,000,000 134,600,000 95,104,735
================================================
Research, test, and evaluation equipment and facilities:
Independent operational test and evaluation [IOT&E] sup 3,500,000 3,500,000 3,500,000
FAA Technical Center facility--technical building lease 5,290,000 5,290,000 5,290,000
Utility plant modifications............................ 910,000 910,000 910,000
NAS improvement of system support laboratory........... 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Technical Center facilities............................ 9,000,000 9,000,000 9,000,000
------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, research, test, and evaluation equipment
and facilities...................................... 20,700,000 20,700,000 20,700,000
------------------------------------------------
Total, engineering, development, test, and evaluation 314,742,000 375,942,000 361,891,735
================================================
Air traffic control facilities and equipment:
En route programs:
Long Range Radar [LRR] Program-- replace/establish..... 17,702,000 17,702,000 17,702,000
En Route Automation Program............................ 106,100,000 106,100,000 106,100,000
Air traffic operations management system [ATOMS]....... 2,650,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
Weather and radar processor [WARP]..................... 24,650,000 24,650,000 24,650,000
Aeronautical data link [ADL] applications.............. 17,425,000 17,425,000 17,425,000
ARTCC building improvements/plant improvements......... 71,659,700 62,083,000 64,333,000
Voice switching and control system [VSCS]............. 103,700,000 103,700,000 103,700,000
Remote communication facilities [RCF's]--expand/
relocate.............................................. 2,825,000 2,825,000 2,825,000
Air traffic management [ATM]........................... 40,360,000 30,960,000 40,300,000
Data multiplexing network [DMN]........................ 3,900,000 3,900,000 3,900,000
En route communications and control facilities
improvement........................................... 3,265,800 3,265,800 3,265,800
Satellite communications circuit backup................ 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
DOD base closure--facility transfer.................... 500,000 500,000 500,000
Backup emergency communications [BUUEC]--interim....... 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000
ATC beacon interrogator [ATCBI] replace- ment......... 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
Volcano monitor........................................ .............. ............... 2,000,000
Spectrum auction impact................................ .............. 45,000,000 45,000,000
------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, en route programs........................ 400,737,500 425,111,500 438,700,800
================================================
Terminal programs:
Terminal doppler weather radar [TDWR]--provide......... 4,655,000 4,655,000 4,655,000
Mode S--provide........................................ 3,980,000 3,980,000 3,980,000
Terminal Automation Program............................ 27,700,000 27,700,000 16,300,000
Airport movement area safety system [AMASS]............ 15,393,000 15,393,000 15,393,000
Remote maintenance monitoring system [RMMS]--provide... 17,900,000 17,900,000 17,900,000
Terminal air traffic control facilities--replace....... 74,400,000 74,400,000 79,800,000
Air traffic control tower [ATCT]/TRACON facilites--
improve............................................... 16,354,850 16,354,850 16,354,850
Terminal voice switch replacement [TVSR]/enhanced
terminal voice switch................................. 17,900,000 17,900,000 12,300,000
Terminal radar [ASR]--improve.......................... 4,445,390 4,445,390 4,445,390
Airport surface detection equipment [ASDE]--additional
establishment......................................... 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
NAS facilities OSHA and environmental standards
compliance............................................ 36,924,000 21,000,000 27,705,000
Chicago TRACON......................................... 2,900,000 2,900,000 2,900,000
New Austin Airport at Bergstrom........................ 16,900,000 16,900,000 16,900,000
Potomac TRACON......................................... 1,000,000 4,000,000 1,000,000
Southern California TRACON............................. 5,700,000 5,700,000 5,700,000
Denver TRACON.......................................... 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
Northern California TRACON............................. 8,700,000 2,700,000 8,700,000
Atlanta TRACON......................................... 500,000 3,500,000 500,000
Tower Automation Program............................... 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000
Voice Recorder Replacement Program [VRRP]............. 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
Terminal communications improvements................... 3,406,225 3,406,225 3,406,225
GRR/GRT radio replacement.............................. .............. 20,000,000 ..............
------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, terminal programs.......................... 280,758,500 284,834,500 259,939,465
================================================
Flight service programs:
Automated surface observing system [ASOS]............. 1,369,000 1,369,000 11,275,000
FSAS operational and supportability implementation
system [OASIS]........................................ 500,000 500,000 500,000
AWOS/ASOS augmentation................................. .............. ............... 550,000
Automated weather observing system [AWOS]............. .............. 1,000,000 ..............
------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, flight services.......................... 1,869,000 2,869,000 12,325,000
================================================
Landing and Navigational Aids Program:
Very high frequency omnidirectional radio range [VOR]
with distance measuring equipment..................... 1,900,000 1,900,000 1,900,000
Instrument landing system [ILS]--establish/upgrade..... 1,500,000 1,500,000 2,900,000
Approach Lighting System Improvement Program [ALSIP]... 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Low level windshear alert system [LLWAS]--upgrade...... 17,399,000 17,399,000 17,399,000
Runway visual range [RVR]--establish................... 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000
Instrument approach procedures automation [IAPA]....... 2,400,000 2,400,000 2,400,000
Gulf of Mexico Offshore Program........................ 5,950,000 5,950,000 5,950,000
Instrument landing system [ILS]--replace GRN 27........ 9,000,000 9,000,000 9,000,000
Wide area augmentation system [WAAS]................... 74,500,000 ............... ..............
Navigational and landing aids--improve................. 3,744,000 3,744,000 3,744,000
Loran-C upgrades....................................... .............. 5,650,000 3,650,000
Precision approach path indicators [PAPI].............. .............. ............... 3,125,000
Anemometers............................................ .............. ............... 375,000
------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, landing and navigational aids.............. 121,393,000 52,543,000 55,443,000
================================================
Other ATC facilities programs:
Alaskan NAS interfacility communications system [ANICS] 12,000,000 12,000,000 12,000,000
Fuel storage tank replacement and monitoring........... 43,700,000 43,700,000 43,700,000
FAA buildings and equipment--improve/modernize......... 12,600,000 12,600,000 12,600,000
Electrical power systems--sustain/support.............. 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000
Air navigational aids and air traffic control
facilities (local projects)........................... 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Air navigational facilities/air traffic control system
support--provide...................................... 4,800,000 ............... ..............
Aircraft and Related Equipment Program................. 4,900,000 4,900,000 4,900,000
Computer-aided engineering graphics [CAEG] replacement. 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, other ATC facility programs.............. 96,500,000 91,700,000 91,700,000
------------------------------------------------
Total, air traffic control facilities and equipment 901,258,000 857,058,000 858,108,265
================================================
Nonair traffic control facilities and equipment:
Support equipment:
NAS Management Automation Program [NASMAP]............. 1,300,000 ............... 1,300,000
Hazardous materials management......................... 18,000,000 15,000,000 18,000,000
National airspace system recovery communications [RCOM] 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
Aviation safety analysis system [ASAS]................. 19,400,000 19,400,000 19,400,000
Operational data management system [ODMS].............. 5,100,000 5,100,000 5,100,000
FAA employee housing--provide.......................... 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
Logistics support systems and facilities [LSSF]........ 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
Test equipment--maintenance support for replacement.... 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
Integrated flight quality assurance.................... 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Safety performance analysis system [SPAS]............. 2,600,000 2,600,000 2,600,000
Performance enhancement system [PENS].................. 1,900,000 1,900,000 1,900,000
National Aviation Safety Data Center [ASAAP]........... 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000
------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, support equipment........................ 63,000,000 58,700,000 63,000,000
================================================
Training, equipment, and facilities:
Distance learning...................................... 7,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000
National airspace system [NAS] training facilities..... 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, training, equipment, and facilities...... 8,000,000 4,500,000 4,000,000
------------------------------------------------
Total, nonair traffic control facilities and
equipment......................................... 71,000,000 63,200,000 67,000,000
================================================
Mission support:
System support and services:
System engineering and development support............. 33,350,000 33,350,000 33,350,000
Program support leases................................. 29,600,000 29,600,000 29,600,000
Logistics support services [LSS]....................... 8,800,000 8,800,000 8,800,000
Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center-- lease.............. 15,500,000 15,500,000 15,500,000
In-plant national airspace system [NAS] contract
support services...................................... 4,800,000 4,800,000 4,800,000
Transition engineering support......................... 49,450,000 49,450,000 49,450,000
Frequency and spectrum engineering..................... 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000
Permanent change of station [PCS] moves................ 8,500,000 5,500,000 8,500,000
FAA corporate system architecture...................... 9,600,000 9,600,000 9,600,000
Technical services support contract [TSSC]............ 65,900,000 71,000,000 65,900,000
Resource Tracking Program [RTP]........................ 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
Center for Advanced System Development................. 57,000,000 57,000,000 57,000,000
------------------------------------------------
Total, mission support............................... 284,700,000 286,800,000 284,700,000
================================================
Personnel and related expenses................................. 217,000,000 217,000,000 217,000,000
------------------------------------------------
Total, all activities.................................... 1,788,700,000 1,800,000,000 1,788,700,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
engineering, development, test, and evaluation
The Committee recommends $361,891,735 for various
engineering, development, test, and evaluation activities.
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. 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. The former AAS
program 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].
En route programs
Aviation weather services improvements.--The Committee has
decreased the funding request for aviation weather services
improvements by $8,055,000, due to a favorable contract bid
received by FAA which was lower than originally budgeted. More
nondevelopmental software was available for this program than
was originally anticipated, and the Department has offered up
this reduction so that more higher priority programs can be
funded.
En route automation program.--The Committee has provided
$96,500,000 for the en route automation program. This is a
reduction of $10,000,000 from the budget request. The Committee
concurs in the House's observation that there are program
savings of $10,000,000 available within this account from the
advanced automation system termination liability cost savings.
These funds should be available to FAA for this program.
However, the Committee has restored the $7,345,000 that the
House had cut from the advanced en route automation program
[AERA]. The Committee believes that reducing these funds would
result in a 1-year slippage of the AERA build one development
and deployment activity, and that any user preferred routing
savings based on the AERA program would be lost for a year. The
Committee has long supported the AERA program, and believes
that restitution of this funding is necessary.
Oceanic automation system.--The oceanic automation system
is a state-of-the-art platform that would provide improved air
traffic control over the oceans. Of the amount requested,
$40,600,000 would be used for continued development of the
project, including $9,900,000 for program management and
$29,900,000 for phase 2, which is new software development
replacing flight data processing structure and software. The
Committee understands that FAA is in the process of reducing
the scope of the advanced oceanic automation system [AOAS] and
cannot fully implement phase 2 as originally envisioned.
Because of uncertainty over FAA's plans regarding this project,
the Committee believes that one-half of the phase 2
developmental budget can be reduced, and that it would be
prudent for FAA to wait for the Hughes-Canadian Government
testing which is to occur this summer on a system that would be
similar to, but an alternative to, FAA's current project
description.
Terminal programs
Terminal digital radar (ASR-11).--The Committee has
restored $20,000,000 for the terminal digital radar (ASR-11)
program, which is a joint program with the Department of
Defense and the Federal Aviation Administration. The funding
requested for fiscal year 1997 by the administration would be
used to procure a first article system, that is a joint FAA-DOD
system, and to conduct testing to determine the operational
suitability of the radar for both agencies. FAA anticipates
that the system would be brought to production standards upon
completion of testing. The Committee has restored most of the
funding because it understands and appreciates that the ASR-7
radars that are currently in operation need to be replaced, due
to their aging condition and parts unsupportability. In
addition, FAA could possibly lose aircraft surveillance
capability at all STARS locations which are currently connected
to the ASR-7's. In addition, the Committee understands that FAA
will need to soon embark on a program to replace or digitize
the existing ASR-8's.
Terminal automation program.--The Committee has restored
the funding requested for the terminal automation program, also
known as standard terminal automation replacement system
[STARS]. The fiscal year 1997 request is the first year on the
STARS production contract. It is currently planned to be
awarded at the end of fiscal year 1996 and the 1997 funds are
necessary for the development and testings of those facilities
that would be required to meet initial operational readiness
dates. In addition, the Committee does not agree with the
House's position adding $2,000,000 for the surface movement
advisor [SMA] to the terminal automation budget. Funding for
SMA is contained in another budget line item, and additional
funds above that requested for fiscal year 1997 are not needed.
NAS infrastructure management.--The Committee has restored
$6,000,000 for the NAS infrastructure management program, which
is the management system being used to coordinate the
consolidation of multiple aging and obsolete control centers
into fewer, state-of-the-art facilities. Given the emphasis to
consolidate and develop state-of-the-art TRACON's which are
underway, the Committee believes that the elimination of this
funding would be detrimental to FAA's previous plans and the
Committee's direction to consolidate air traffic facilities
where and when possible.
Weather systems processor.--The Committee has restored the
full amount requested for the weather systems processor
program. Funds in fiscal year 1997 would be used for initial
contract award for the procurement of three full-scale
development prototype weather systems processors. These
processors would provide terminal weather radar capability at
those ASR equipped airports that do not have terminal doppler
weather radars. The Committee has provided this funding
believing that FAA needs to find a weather radar solution at
existing airports. The Committee does not take a position as to
whether the weather systems processor is the answer, or whether
the terminal area surveillance system, which is a next
generation phased array radar, could replace both the ASR-9's
and terminal doppler weather radars at airports. The Committee
is concerned that there are a number of line items in the FAA's
facilities and equipment and research, engineering, and
development budgets which basically are intended to produce the
same solution. The Committee is concerned that FAA has many
different approaches that it is following and is not, at this
date, able to decide on the best way to proceed. The provision
of this money does not necessarily mean that the Committee, at
a later date, would support the procurement of the 33 weather
system processors which are estimated to cost $73,000,000; but
does support at least the development of prototypes of systems
processors to see if they are the answer to terminal weather
problems.
Landing and navigational aids programs
Wide area augmentation system [WAAS].--The Committee has
not provided the additional funding of $42,600,000 contained in
the House allowance for the wide area augmentation system. It
should be pointed out that the House Committee increased the
funds and has identified that approximately $34,000,000 in
additional funding might be necessary in order to cover prime
contract costs that exceeded the original program estimates due
to the Wilcox contract termination and the subsequent
renegotiation with Hughes. The Committee understands that
additional funding might be essential to continue the safety
critical software development and system engineering for the
initial WAAS operational implementation. However, FAA should
have been cognizant of this and understood that slippages in
software and development were a byproduct of a contract
termination and, due to budget constraints, the Committee
cannot provide the additional funding at this particular time.
The Committee, however, has provided the $8,600,000 which was
transferred from the ``Operations'' account for leased
communications.
National satellite test bed.--The Committee supports the
House increase for additional funds for the national satellite
test bed; however, due to budget constraints, has provided
$6,004,735. This funding would be used to support
implementation of augmentation systems that would be used to
improve the accuracy, integrity, and availability of GPS. The
national satellite test bed should provided FAA with the
capability to monitor and evaluate in parallel the functions
and processes developed by the WAAS contractor for each
component as developed by the contractor.
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
En route programs
Air traffic operations management [ATOMS].--The Committee
concurs with the House's position regarding the air traffic
operations management system. The funding provided, $1,000,000,
is the same funding level as appropriated for fiscal year 1996.
In light of other, higher-priority programs, the Committee
concurs with the House's reduction.
Air route traffic control center [ARTCC] improvement/plant
modernization/space expansion.--FAA is requesting $71,659,700
to perform needed modernization and expansion at its ARTCC's to
accommodate new equipment that will modernize controller
displays and communications systems. The Committee has provided
$64,333,000, this includes $250,000 for the relocation of the
emergency operations facility in Kenai, AK, to the Anchorage
Air Route Traffic Control Center.
Air traffic management.--The Committee has provided
$40,300,000 for the air traffic management function, which is
the same level as that provided in fiscal year 1996 and has not
assumed that the $3,300,000 for the Herndon, VA, facility's
lease payments under the ``Operations'' account.
Volcano monitor.--The Committee has included additional
funding for the Alaska Volcano Observatory for equipment and
data transmission facilities on suspect volcanoes across the
Alaska peninsula and the Aleutian Islands.
Spectrum auction impact.--Congress enacted legislation that
has resulted in the sale of aeronautical radio spectrum used
for operation of FAA long-range radars and FAA microwave radio
communications links. As a result of these sales, FAA must
relinquish operation of some of its communication and radar
systems effective January 1, 1999. FAA is the largest single
Government user of radio spectrum, and each frequency
assignment supports safety, capacity, and efficiency.
Therefore, the loss of such spectrum required for existing and
future airspace operations could have serious impacts on the
aviation traffic services provided. Proceeds from the spectrum
auction have generated more than $20,000,000,000 to date.
However, none of these funds have been provided as compensation
to the Federal Aviation Administration since they were affected
by the frequency loss. In December 1995, the FAA was told that
no reimbursement would be made from those sales, and that it
was up to the FAA to convert the agency's communications and
radar systems to other frequencies. During the formulation of
the fiscal year 1997 budget, FAA was not fully aware of the
impact of these sales, or the decision regarding
nonreimbursement for frequency loss. Therefore, the Department
concurs with the increase which has been proposed by the House.
The understanding is, however, that FAA must relinquish
operation of only some of these frequencies effective January
1, 1999, or fiscal year 2000. The Committee understands that,
in addition to the funding that has been provided this year,
$45,000,000, that as much as an additional $40,000,000 might be
required in fiscal year 1998 or 1999. The Committee will work
with FAA in the development of next year's budget in order to
identify sources of funding to pay for the necessary
reengineering.
Terminal programs
Terminal automation program.--The Committee has reduced the
terminal automation program by $11,400,000 because it is
unclear as to how and when FAA will use the standard terminal
automation replacement system at Dallas-Fort Worth for the
center TRACON automation system demonstration. There is
considerable uncertainty surrounding the STARS software
development, which has the potential to delay system
implementation. The Committee understands that on October 1,
1996, FAA plans to award a STARS production contract to one of
the competing vendors, and that the existing schedule would
call for system testing to be completed in November 1998 and
first site implementation in December 1998. However, the
Committee understands that FAA is currently rebaselining the
STARS cost and schedule estimates, because the STARS software
development costs are escalating, and that the original
estimate for software development was 90,000 lines of new
modified code, but current estimates place these lines of code
modifications for TRACON's at nearly 300,000. Because of this,
FAA has yet to prepare a plan for developing the STARS hardware
and software needed at the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport to
develop, test, and support the center TRACON automation system.
The Committee has provided $4,800,000 to sustain DBRITE
equipment until STARS is deployed, and another $1,500,000 to
develop and implement new terminal operational software and
$10,000,000 for STARS software and hardware development.
Airport movement area safety system [AMASS].--The
administration has requested $15,393,000 for the procurement
and installation of 14 production systems of the airport
movement area safety system [AMASS]. It is the Committee's
understanding that meetings were held as late as May 1996 for
the rebaselining of AMASS program dates and costs, and that
decisions have still not been made since the cost estimates
made 3 years ago are not consistent with the proposed costs
being submitted by present contractors. Because of these
slippages, original schedules have been delayed, the contract
award for the full-scale development models is currently being
negotiated, and the initial production contract will most
likely be awarded in January 1997. Under this schedule, the
full-scale development systems could not be completed until
March 1998, and at that time approval would be exercised for
full-scale production systems. Therefore, the Committee
believes the full amount requested can be deferred because
under the new schedule, production models will not be ordered
until, at the earliest, June 1998, and that unobligated
balances of approximately $12,000,000 from prior years should
be sufficient to allow FAA to order three full-scale
development models and six to seven initial production systems.
The Committee, however, has provided the amount requested only
because the program is vitally important for safety reasons but
it reserves the right to revisit this issue in conference.
Terminal air traffic control facilities, replace.--The
Committee has provided funding above that requested for the
construction of the Merrill Field air traffic control tower.
These funds would be used to replace the approximately 40-year-
old control tower that is presently located at the field.
Terminal voice switch replacement/enhancement.--The
Committee has reduced the requested funding for this program by
$5,600,000. It is the Committee's understanding that, out of
the 26 switches in the original fiscal year 1997 budget
estimate, as many as 15 would not be ordered until late fiscal
year 1997 or early 1998, and that these 15 switches would not
be delivered to the field until the first quarter of fiscal
year 1999 at the earliest. Therefore, the Committee believes
that the funding associated with these 15 switches can be
deferred until fiscal year 1998.
NAS facilities/OSHA and environmental compliance.--The
Committee has provided a total $27,705,000 for OSHA and
environmental standards compliance. This restores $6,705,000 of
the House's cut.
Potomac TRACON.--The Committee has provided the full amount
requested for Potomac TRACON, which was $1,000,000. The House
had included funding above that requested for this particular
project. The Committee believes that the administration's
request is sufficient to meet proposed program initiatives for
the Potomac TRACON. FAA is currently reviewing proposals for
the location of this TRACON, and additional funding as proposed
by the House is not necessary at this time.
Northern California TRACON.--The Committee has provided the
full amount requested for the northern California TRACON, which
was $8,700,000. The House's allowance had reduced this project
by over $6,000,000. The Committee believes the reduction of
this funding is inappropriate, and that there is a definite
high operational need for fully funding this request. Existing
facilities this new TRACON replaces are in poor condition and
cannot be expanded. Funding requested was based on a schedule
which would allow for a November 2000 commissioning date.
Fiscal year 1997 funds were intended for site development,
power system procurement, program management, and system
engineering support. Funding at the House's level would limit
these activities to only site development, and could push this
project's commissioning back by several years.
Atlanta TRACON.--The House has included $3,500,000 for an
Atlanta TRACON, $3,000,000 of this funding was not requested by
the administration. The Committee has provided the amount
requested to complete land acquisition, environmental impact
statements, and preliminary engineering work.
GRR/GRT radio replacement.--The Committee has not provided
the funding included in the House allowance ($20,000,000 above
the administration's request) because the current radio system
is based on a design that was first formulated in the forties
and consists of voice-based networks that use an antiquated
modulation system. Given the increasing difficulties in
providing new frequencies to air traffic controllers, and
frequency congestion often experienced in metropolitan areas,
the Committee supports the new digital radios which are under
development by the Federal Aviation Administration, which it
believes will effectively increase frequencies available by a
factor of 4 to 5.
Flight service programs
Automated surface observing system [ASOS].--The Committee
has provided $11,275,000 for ASOS, which is $9,906,000 above
the House level and the administration's request.
The Committee notes that the administration did not request
any funding for procurement of ASOS. However, the FAA has
identified a need for ASOS implementation funding to satisfy
more than 200 sites in fiscal year 1997 and beyond, with a hard
requirement for 55 systems in fiscal year 1997.
The Committee reiterates its concern for the unfunded
shortfall and encourages the FAA to close the gap of installed
versus commissioned sites as expeditiously as possible. The
Committee provides an additional $10,000,000 to ASOS for the
procurement of 55 ASOS units to satisfy the identified fiscal
year 1997 requirement and requests the FAA to submit
anticipated program requirements for future years. The
Committee has also included $1,275,000 for the 44 ASOS units in
Alaska that still neeed to be commissioned.
AWOS/ASOS augmentation.--The Committee has provided
additional funding above that requested for the installation of
10 closed-circuit television systems to supplement the existing
AWOS/ASOS weather systems in the State of Alaska. Based on
information provided by regional FAA authorities, the
approximate cost for each unit is $45,000 to $55,000, based on
their experience with existing units in the field.
Automated weather observing system [AWOS].--The Committee
has not provided any funding for AWOS. The funds provided by
the House were not requested.
Landing and navigational aids program
Instrument landing system [ILS] establish/upgrade.--The
Committee has included $1,400,000 above the request for a CAT I
with MALSR support for runway 36Right at Huntsville-Madison
County Airport, AL. The Committee understands that this
installation has received a benefit-to-cost finding of 2.33.
Wide area augmentation system [WAAS].--Funding for the wide
area augmentation system has been moved from the air traffic
control facilities and equipment procurement activity to the
engineering, development, test, and evaluation activity under
landing and navigational aids programs.
Loran-C upgrades.--The House has provided $5,650,000 for
loran-C upgrades which were not requested by the
administration. The FAA has appealed this funding, stating that
the agency will continue to rely on the technology enhancements
offered by the global positioning system technology, which is
fundamental to future navigation and landing automation plans.
The present radio navigation plan which has been adopted by
several governmental agencies calls for the phaseout of the
loran-C radio navigation system by the year 2000. In addition,
the estimated total cost of loran-C between fiscal year 2000
and 2015 would be approximately $350,000,000, which the agency
cannot afford. Continuation of the WAAS system will permit the
orderly removal of ground-based navigation systems, including
loran-C. FAA believes it cannot financially sustain nor justify
on a cost-benefit basis maintaining two navigation systems at
the same time.
The Committee has provided $3,650,000 above the
administration's request for the loran-C upgrade program. Of
this amount, $650,000 is to be used for the automatic blink
system upgrade. The Committee is concerned that the radio
navigation plan which called for the phasing out of the loran-C
program by the year 2000 was based on an optimistic assumption
regarding the immediate and successful implementation and
commissioning of the GPS system. In order to maintain and
upgrade the existing loran-C systems and to reduce maintenance
costs associated with those systems, the Committee has provided
$3,000,000 above that requested by the administration for
upgrade and modernization of existing systems.
Precision approach path indicators [PAPI].--The Committee
has provided $3,125,000 for the PAPI navigational aid systems.
The Committee has included funding with the understanding that
FAA intends to replace existing visual approach slope
indicators with PAPI, and funds are needed to prevent existing
production lines from being closed.
Anemometers.--The Committee has provided $375,000 for three
off-airport anemometers for wind direction and speed
measurement at Juneau International Airport, AK.
Other ATC facilities programs
Air navigation facilities--provide.--The Committee has
agreed with the House's reduction for the air navigation
facilities request, which has been deleted because of budget
constraints. It is the Committee's understanding that the
Department can accept this reduction given the need to fund
other, more high priority programs.
major equipment activity
TERMINAL DOPPLER WEATHER RADAR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City Delivery dates Commissioning 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\................... Dec. 21, 1995.
Washington National...................... July 8, 1993 \1\.................... Jan. 4, 1996.
Denver................................... July 6, 1993 \1\.................... Aug. 11, 1995.
Chicago O'Hare........................... Sept. 17, 1993 \1\.................. June 1996.\2\
St. Louis................................ Jan. 3, 1994 \1\.................... Feb. 1, 1995.
Orlando.................................. Mar. 17, 1994 \1\................... Apr. 23, 1996.
New Orleans.............................. Apr. 2, 1994 \1\.................... Mar. 18, 1996.
Tampa.................................... May 16, 1994 \1\.................... Apr. 2, 1996.
Miami.................................... June 6, 1994 \1\.................... June 1996.\2\
Pittsburgh............................... July 10, 1994 \1\................... Do.
Andrews.................................. Aug. 13, 1994 \1\................... Do.
Newark................................... ...do............................... To be determined.\3\
Boston................................... Aug. 29, 1994 \1\................... Jan. 9, 1996.
Kansas City.............................. Oct. 2, 1994 \1\.................... July 18, 1995.
Detroit.................................. Oct. 15, 1994 \1\................... June 1996.\2\
Houston Hobby............................ Apr. 8, 1995 \2\.................... Do.
Dallas Love.............................. Nov. 1, 1994 \1\.................... Jan. 31, 1996.
Oklahoma City--PSF facility.............. Dec. 8, 1994 \1\.................... NA
Dallas/Fort Worth........................ Jan. 30, 1995 \1\................... May 1996.\2\
Dayton................................... Dec. 19, 1994 \1\................... To be determined.
Wichita.................................. Feb. 6, 1995 \1\.................... Sept. 5, 1995.
Indianapolis............................. Mar. 5, 1995 \1\.................... June 1996.\2\
Cincinnati............................... Dec. 9, 1995 \1\.................... July 1996.\2\
Philadelphia............................. August 1995 \1\..................... June 1996.\2\
Phoenix.................................. Mar. 29, 1996....................... September 1996.\2\
Milwaukee................................ May 12, 1995........................ July 1996.\2\
Chicago Midway........................... To be determined \3\................ To be determined.\3\
Cleveland................................ September 7, 1995................... June 1996.\2\
Columbus................................. Nov. 10, 1995....................... June 1996.\2\
San Juan................................. To be determined \3\................ To be determined.\3\
West Palm Beach.......................... June 8, 1995 \1\.................... May 1996.\2\
Nashville................................ May 1996 \2\........................ October 1996.\2\
Louisville............................... August 1996 \2\..................... December 1996.\2\
Washington Dulles........................ Jan. 9, 1996........................ August 1996.\2\
Charlotte................................ July 7, 1995 \1\.................... Dec. 22, 1995.\2\
Salt Lake City........................... Nov. 10, 1995....................... July 1996.\2\
Fort Lauderdale.......................... To be determined \3\................ To be determined.\3\
Baltimore................................ Jan, 5, 1996........................ July 1996.\2\
Raleigh/Durham........................... May 1996 \2\........................ November 1996.\2\
Minneapolis.............................. ...do............................... October 1996.\2\
Oklahoma City............................ Apr. 1, 1996........................ September 1996.\2\
Tulsa.................................... August 1996 \2\..................... December 1996.\2\
New York City (JFK and LGA) \4\.......... To be determined \3\................ To be 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 1996.
San Francisco................. November 1991........ October 1995.
Dallas/Fort Worth............. February 1992........ March 1995.
Philadelphia.................. ...do................ March 1996.
Los Angeles \3\............... August 1992.......... April 1995.
Detroit....................... ...do................ December 1994.
Cleveland..................... ...do................ Do.
Boston........................ ...do................ March 1995.
Portland...................... ...do................ December 1994.
Atlanta....................... September 1992....... January 1995.
Seattle....................... September 1992....... December 1993.
Los Angeles \4\............... February 1993........ February 1995.
Denver (DIA) \3\ \4\.......... March 1993........... May 1995.
St. Louis..................... December 1993........ February 1995.
Denver (DIA) \4\.............. ...do................ October 1995.
New York-Kennedy.............. January 1994......... February 1995.
Minneapolis................... July 1994............ March 1995.
Anchorage..................... August 1994.......... October 1995.
New Orleans................... October 1994......... September 1995.
Baltimore..................... November 1994........ June 1995.
Kansas City................... December 1994........ May 1995.
Miami......................... February 1995........ August 1996.
Houston \3\................... ...do................ August 1995.
Memphis....................... June 1995............ October 1996.
Chicago....................... ...do................ April 1996.
Houston \3\................... August 1996.......... August 1997.
Charlotte \5\................. November 1997........ November 1998.
Raleigh-Durham \5\............ February 1998........ February 1999.
Washington National........... January 1996......... May 1997.
Cincinnati \5\................ October 1995......... July 1996.
Dulles \5\.................... November 1996........ November 1997.
San Diego \5\................. November 1995........ December 1996.
Orlando \5\................... May 1998............. May 1999.
Andrews AFB................... November 1998........ November 1999.
Orange County \5\............. February 1999........ Do.
Las Vegas \6\................. February 1997........ February 1998.
New York-LaGuardia............ August 1998.......... August 1999.
Newark........................ August 1997.......... August 1998.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
\6\ Formerly Tampa.
Instrument landing systems--establish
Location Runway
CAT I site:
Detroit Metro, MI............................................. 22
Huntsville-Madison, AL........................................ 36R
Note.--Changing conditions at airport locations may dictate that
installation priorities be modified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instrument landing systems--GRN-27--replace
Location Runway
Tulsa, OK......................................................... 36R
Dayton (International), OH........................................ 06L
Minneapolis, MN................................................... 29L
Omaha, NE......................................................... 14R
San Antonio, TX................................................... 12R
LaGuardia, NY..................................................... 22
Charlotte-Douglas, NC............................................. 36L
Eugene, OR........................................................ 16
Memphis, TN....................................................... 36L
Atlanta, GA....................................................... 08R
Jacksonville, FL.................................................. 07
Chattanooga, TN................................................... 20
Birmingham, AL.................................................... 05
Greer, SC......................................................... 03
Columbia, SC...................................................... 11
Shreveport, LA.................................................... 14
Tampa, FL......................................................... 36L
San Francisco, CA................................................. 28R
Sacramento, CA.................................................... 16R
Omaha, NE......................................................... 14R
Huntsville, AL.................................................... 18R
Covington, KY..................................................... 36L
FAA Depot, OK...........................................................
Atlanta, GA....................................................... 08L
Do............................................................ 09R
Raleigh, NC....................................................... 05R
New Orleans, LA................................................... 10
Nashville, TN..................................................... 02L
Note.--Changing conditions at airport locations may dictate that
installation priorities be modified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Runway visual range
Andrews AFB, MD
Atlantic City, NJ
Baltimore, MD
Cincinnati, OH
Columbus, OH
Detroit (YIP), MI
Hayannis, MA
Martha's Vineyard, MA
Nantucket, MA
Boise, ID
Billings, MT
Casper, WY
Augusta, GA
Birmingham, AL
Shreveport, LA
Alliance, TX
Beaumont/Port Arthur, TX
El Paso, TX
Grand Rapids, MI
Burbank, CA
Boise, ID
Note.--Changing conditions at airport locations may dictate that
installation priorities be modified.
Terminal air traffic control facilities
Funding for terminal air traffic control facilities started in 1989-93:
Fort Smith, AR
Houston (IAH), TX
Roswell, NM
Los Angeles, CA
Moses Lake, WA
Allentown, PA
St. Louis (ATCT), MO
Chicago (O'Hare), IL
Helena, MT
Montgomery, AL
Minneapolis, MN
Pontiac, MI
Covington, KY
San Juan, PR
Chicago (Midway), KY
San Diego, CA
St. Louis (ASDE), MO
Santa Barbara, CA
Mobile (Brookley), AL
Worcester, MA
St. Paul, MN
Islip, NY
Bangor, ME
Salt Lake City (ATCT), UT
Everett, WA
Phase III for terminal air traffic control facilities started in fiscal
year 1995 and before:
Windsor Locks, CT
Merrill, AK
Portland OR
Salt Lake City (TRACON), UT
Phase II funding for terminal air traffic control facilities started in
fiscal year 1996 and before:
Champaign, IL
Bedford, MA
Albany, NY
Little Rock, AR
Dallas (Addison), TX
Salina, KS
Syracuse, NY
Newport News, VA
Roanoke, VA
Newburgh, NY
Houston (Hobby), TX
Phase I funding for terminal air traffic control facilities to be
started in fiscal year 1997:
Abilene, TX
East St. Louis, IL
Seattle (ATCT), WA
Riverside, CA
Richmond, VA
Savannah, GA
Boston (TRACON), MA
Merrill Field, AK
nonair traffic control facilities and equipment
Support equipment
NAS management automation program.--The Committee has
provided $1,300,000, the original amount requested. The House
provided no funding for this activity. The Committee believes
that the restored funding is necessary to achieve more cost-
efficient management of the national airspace system
infrastructure.
Hazardous materials management.--The Committee has restored
the $3,000,000 which was cut by the House's action for
hazardous materials management. FAA has appealed that the
reductions proposed by the House would not enable them to meet
all requirements for activities planned at currently known
contamination sites. The FAA's Technical Center is listed on
the national priorities list, and has numerous site cleanup
actions underway. Located within the Technical Center
boundaries is the Atlantic City reservoir, which is owned and
operated by the Atlantic City municipal utilities. The
Technical Center is surrounded by many waterways that
ultimately drain into the city's reservoir. Any delays in the
agreed-upon cleanup of known sites at the Technical Center
could jeopardize the status of the city's water supply and
cause tremendous liability for the agency and jeopardize the
drinking water of the city. Therefore, the Committee has
restored this funding, and places a high priority on response
to known hazardous materials sites.
Training, equipment and facilities
Distance learning.--The Committee concurs with the House's
observation regarding the distance learning project as proposed
by the FAA. The Committee has heard from a number of the unions
that support the inspector general's report on the interactive
video teletraining. The full scale acquisition activities
should be examined in light of FAA's need to invest in quality
training for its existing work force. The Committee believes
that on-the-job training at the FAA Academy would be a better
investment given the current climate, the need for hazardous
materials training, and the need to keep the experience levels
of systems specialists up to date.
mission support
Permanent change of station [PCS].--The Committee is on the
record for several years questioning the management of the
permanent change of station program by FAA, and believes that
FAA has expanded the scope and payment of PCS moves beyond
necessary levels. The Committee believes, however, that the
House reduction of $3,000,000 is unwise, The Committee believes
that with the possible closure of 16 nonautomated flight
service stations in 1997 these funds are necessary to move the
employees scheduled to be displaced.
Technical services support contract [TSSC].--The Committee
has provided the full amount requested for the technical
services support contract, which was $65,900,000, and has not
provided the increase of $5,100,000 as proposed by the House.
The warehouse equipment issue regarding spare parts, though
serious, is something that could be more effectively addressed
through the use of FAA's existing personnel and optimization
and coordination of facilities and equipment programs. The
Committee believes that the current FAA request is sufficient
to accomplish the program requirements.
personnel and related expenses
Personnel and related expenses.--The Committee has provided
the full amount requested, $217,000,000, which is the same as
the House allowance.
Installation of CASA--reductions of delays.--Over the last
2 years, the Committee has repeatedly voiced concerns regarding
the implementation timeline for the controller automating
spacing aid, also known as converging runway display aid
[CRDA]. This is an important feature of the FAA's automated
radar tracking system IIIA and a feature which is currently
being adapted to the ARTS IIIE system which is in use at the
New York terminal radar approach control facility [TRACON]. The
CRDA (in combination with the ARTS IIIE) greatly enhances the
ability to use two runways safely during instrument weather
conditions and, therefore, increases airport capacity and
reduces delays. The Committee notes that there has been
inadequate progress made on final installation/implementation
of CRDA for Newark International Airport--in fact, the original
deadline has slipped at least 6 months from September 1996 to
March 1997. The Committee has recently received verbal
assurances from the FAA that with the appropriate priority
placed on this project, CRDA could be fully operational by
March 1997. Therefore, the Committee directs the FAA to take
all steps necessary to make the CRDA fully operational by the
March 1997 deadline. Recent reports of extraordinary delays at
Newark International Airport serve as a reminder that there is
a need for meaningful and timely action at the highest levels
of FAA to take all steps necessary to further reduce delays at
Newark.
Research, Engineering, and Development
(Airport and Airway Trust Fund)
Appropriations, 1996.................................... $185,698,000
Budget estimate, 1997................................... 195,700,000
House allowance......................................... 185,000,000
Committee recommendation
187,000,000
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 $187,000,000 for research, engineering,
and development. This level is $8,700,000 below the budget
request and $2,000,000 above the House allowance. The Committee
suggests the following allocation:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
1996 1997 budget House Committee
appropriation estimate allowance recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
System development and infrastructure:
System planning and resource management.......... $2,000,000 $4,857,000 $1,860,000 $2,000,000
Technical laboratory facility.................... 8,000,000 6,765,000 6,200,000 6,765,000
Center for advanced aviation system development
[CAASD]......................................... ............. 5,200,000 5,200,000 5,200,000
----------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................... 10,000,000 16,822,000 13,260,000 13,965,000
==========================================================
Capacity and air traffic management technology:
Air traffic management technology................ 3,500,000 6,757,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
Oceanic automation program....................... 8,000,000 6,539,000 6,539,000 6,539,000
Runway incursion reduction....................... 4,000,000 2,766,000 2,766,000 7,400,000
System capacity, planning, and improvements...... 9,000,000 8,950,000 8,950,000 8,950,000
Cockpit technology............................... 6,700,000 5,584,000 3,000,000 3,000,000
General Aviation and Vertical Technology Flight
Program......................................... 2,600,000 3,894,000 3,000,000 2,600,000
Modeling, analysis, and simulation............... 3,400,000 4,133,000 4,133,000 3,800,000
Automation system design......................... ............. 1,947,000 ............ 1,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal..................................... 37,200,000 40,570,000 32,388,000 37,289,000
==========================================================
Communications, navigation, and surveillance:
Communications................................... 10,000,000 10,798,000 6,000,000 6,000,000
Navigation....................................... 13,000,000 9,573,000 15,000,000 11,573,000
Surveillance..................................... ............. ............ ............ 2,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal....................................... 23,000,000 20,371,000 21,000,000 19,573,000
==========================================================
Weather.............................................. 6,493,000 6,411,000 13,000,000 10,000,000
Airport technology................................... 6,000,000 6,000,000 5,200,000 6,000,000
Aircraft safety technology:
Fire research and safety......................... 5,700,000 6,993,000 6,993,000 6,993,000
Advanced materials/structural safety............. 2,000,000 3,065,000 3,065,000 3,065,000
Propulsion and fuel systems...................... 3,400,000 3,779,000 3,779,000 3,400,000
Flight safety/atmospheric hazards research....... 4,713,000 2,063,000 2,063,000 2,063,000
Aging aircraft................................... 20,000,000 13,889,000 13,889,000 13,889,000
Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention research 2,705,000 3,094,000 2,705,000 3,094,000
Aviation safety risk analysis.................... ............. 6,116,000 2,500,000 4,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal....................................... 37,978,000 38,999,000 34,994,000 36,504,000
==========================================================
System security technology:
Explosives and weapons detection................. 29,000,000 27,397,000 27,397,000 27,397,000
Airport security technology integra- tion....... 1,000,000 2,258,000 2,258,000 2,258,000
Aviation security human factors.................. 2,549,000 5,039,000 2,542,000 3,549,000
Aircraft hardening............................... 3,496,000 1,361,000 1,361,000 1,361,000
----------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal....................................... 36,045,000 36,045,000 33,558,000 34,565,000
==========================================================
Human factors and aviation medicine:
Flightdeck/maintenance/system integration human
factors......................................... 11,182,000 10,898,000 11,500,000 10,898,000
Air traffic control/airway facilities human
factors......................................... 10,000,000 8,606,000 10,500,000 8,606,000
Aeromedical research............................. 2,500,000 4,178,000 4,000,000 3,800,000
----------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal....................................... 23,682,000 23,682,000 26,000,000 23,304,000
==========================================================
Environment and energy............................... 3,800,000 3,800,000 3,600,000 3,800,000
Innovative/cooperative research...................... 1,500,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
==========================================================
Total.......................................... 185,698,000 195,700,000 185,000,000 187,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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 fully funded the
$280,000 estimated for the Radio Technical Commission for
Aeronautics [RTCA].
FAA Technical Center--Laboratory.--The House has reduced
the administration's request by $565,000 for work at the FAA
Technical Center. The Committee fully funds the administration
request.
Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development [CAASD].--
The Committee supports the House position which fully funds
CAASD, which is 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 $2,757,000.
The Committee believes that restoration of these funds is not
necessary and agrees that this long-term research can be
reduced in order to fund more pressing safety-related research.
The funding provided, $4,000,000, is a 14-percent increase over
the 1996 funding level.
Runway incursion reduction.--The Committee has provided
$4,634,000 above the administration's request for the runway
incursion reduction program, with the understanding that these
funds be used to continue vital research in a number of areas
with the goal of preventing and reducing the possibilities of
runway incursions. With the myriad number of movements on
airport surfaces, including catering trucks, baggage handling
trucks, fire and police equipment, small general aviation
aircraft, and large scheduled and unscheduled jets, the
Committee feels very strongly that the FAA needs to do more in
the area of runway incursion. A major concern expressed by the
National Transportation Safety Board is the increased number of
incidents reported on runway surfaces and surrounding areas.
Whether these incidents are due to poorly lighted runways, bad
signage, pilot error, or bad weather, the Committee is
determined that research in this vital area continue. The
Committee was disappointed to see that the administration had
requested less funding for this activity in 1997 than had been
provided in fiscal year 1996. There are a number of competing
technologies that could be employed, including improvements to
the airport movement advisory system [AMASS] and the airport
surface detection equipment [ASDE]; loop technologies; and stop
bars, which are widely used in European countries. The
Committee does not take a position on the advisability of any
one particular product or solution, but encourages FAA to
continue research in this area.
Cockpit technology.--The Committee has reduced the
administration's request under the cockpit technology by
$2,584,000 due to higher priorities than the TCAS-IV research.
General Aviation and Vertical Flight Technology Program.--
The Committee has provided $2,600,000 for the Vertical Flight
Program, the same as that provided in fiscal year 1996.
Modeling analysis and simulation.--The Committee has
provided $3,800,000 for modeling analysis and simulation, which
is $400,000 above the fiscal year 1996 level.
Automation system design.--The House has eliminated funding
for this activity. The Committee believes that this research is
operationally driven and can safely be reduced to $1,000,000.
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 $6,000,000. 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 on the airport surface.
Navigation.--The House has provided $5,427,000 above the
amount requested by the administration. The Committee has
provided $2,000,000 above the requested amount for the
navigation line item. The Committee concurs with the House's
observation that under the administration's request, important
navigation initiatives such as the local area augmentation
system, interface with the wide area augmentation system,
architecture research, and technical standards development
would be jeopardized, and, therefore, has provided funding
above the amount requested for this line item.
Surveillance.--The Committee has included $2,000,000 above
that requested for the surveillance research effort. The
Committee in the past has supported research for the terminal
area surveillance system [TASS], which is to eventually provide
a single replacement radar for the current mix of multiple
aircraft and hazardous weather surveillance radars. Key to this
effort is the development of the next generation active phased
array radar, which will replace both the ASR-9 and terminal
doppler weather radar. At major airports today, ASR-9 radar is
used for air surveillance and TDWR is used to detect hazardous
weather phenomena. An objective of the program would be to
eventually replace both of these radars. An additional benefit
of TASS is that FAA should be able to place the system on
airport property. Currently, FAA must locate some ASR-9 systems
and most TDWR systems on land that is near an airport, which
has created land acquisition and environmental problems at
several major airports, preventing them from receiving either
the ASR-9 or TDWR system. Even in a constrained budget
environment, the Committee supports the continuation of
research in this area.
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 $3,589,000 above that requested
by the administration, which is $3,000,00 below that provided
in the House allowance for the Weather Program. Of the funds
provided, the Committee directs that $400,000 be used for
research on wind shears and downdrafts on the Juneau, AK,
approach.
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 $6,000,000 to $5,200,000
stating that the reduction is due to budget constraints. The
Committee has restored funding to last year's level of
$6,000,000.
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.
Propulsion and fuel systems.--The Committee has provided
the same level, $3,400,000, as the fiscal year 1996 level for
propulsion and fuel systems. 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.
Aging aircraft.--The Committee has provided the full amount
requested for FAA's research in the aging aircraft area,
$13,889,000. This research supports airborne data monitoring
systems, corrosion fatigue research, the Center for Aviation
Systems Reliability, and the Aging Aircraft Nondestructive
Inspection Validation Center [AANC], 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.
The Committee commends the FAA for its consideration of a
center of excellence to support continued airworthiness
assurance. This center will bring together universities and a
national laboratory to focus on problems in aircraft
inspection, aircraft structural repair, and crashworthiness. It
will provide a mechanism for industry financial support of
projects mutually beneficial to the FAA and the aircraft
industry.
Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention research.--The
Committee has provided the full amount requested. The Committee
notes the tragic death of two passengers in Florida, apparently
from the catastrophic failure of a titanium part in a jet
engine. This incident demonstrates the continued priority of
research concerning titanium, nickel, and composite materials.
Aviation safety risk analysis.--The aviation system risk
analysis activity is a new program which had previously been
under the aging aircraft effort. This research should enhance
and complement the use of FAA's existing operational safety
systems, which include the aviation safety analysis system
[ASAS] and the safety performance analysis system [SPAS]. Given
the recent Valujet crash, the Committee believes that
fundamental research is needed for complete, thorough and
timely examination of FAA's existing safety analysis reporting
systems, and that analysis lead to better targeting of FAA's
inspection resources. This should not replace existing efforts
being conducted by FAA, but should augment and further define
existing activities.
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
provided the full amount requested, $27,397,000, 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 $2,258,000 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
$1,258,000 above the fiscal year 1996 level.
Aviation security human factors.--The Committee has
provided $3,549,000 for the aviation security human factors
research, which is $1,000,000 above the amount provided in
fiscal year 1996. Research in this area is used for domestic
passenger profiling, screener training systems, and explosives
detection system deployment support. The Committee believes
that severely reducing 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 $1,361,000
for the aircraft hardening activity. The Committee believes
that given the recent Valujet tragedy, continued reseach on
hardened cargo containers, hardening specifications on
containers, and aircraft fuselages is absolutely necessary.
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 integration human factors.--
The House has added $602,000 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 $8,606,000 for the human factors
research in air traffic control and airway facilities, which is
the same as the requested amount.
Aeromedical research.--The Committee has provided the
aeromedical research funding $3,800,000, which is $1,300,000
above the fiscal year 1996 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
$3,800,000 for the environment and energy line item. Work in
this area is primarly concerned with environmental assessments
in the noise area, research and noise reduction technology, and
research in engine emissions reduction and control. Therefore,
the Committee has provided $200,000 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.
Innovative/cooperative research.--The Committee believes
that funding is necessary in this area so that FAA will be able
to best leverage scarce resources, and receive 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
provided $2,000,000 for this activity, which is $500,000 above
the fiscal year 1996 level.
Grants-in-Aid for Airports
(Liquidation of Contract Authorization)
(Airport and Airway Trust Fund)
(including rescission of contract authorization)
Appropriations, 1996....................................($1,500,000,000)
(Rescission)........................................ -664,000,000
Budget estimate, 1997................................... (1,500,000,000)
House allowance......................................... (1,500,000,000)
Committee recommendation
(1,500,000,000)
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 for fiscal
year 1997 and for the payment of previous years' obligations.
Grants-in-Aid for Airports
(Airport and Airway Trust Fund)
(Limitation on Obligations)
Appropriations, 1996....................................($1,450,000,000)
Budget estimate, 1997................................... (1,350,000,000)
House allowance......................................... (1,300,000,000)
Committee recommendation
(1,460,000,000)
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 1997 is $1,460,000,000. This is $160,000,000 above the
House allowance and $110,000,000 above 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 30, 1996, 248 airports have been approved for
collection of PFC's in the amount of $12,936,932,256. During
calendar year 1995, airports collected $1,046,234,802 in PFC
charges and $1,010,000,000 is estimated to be collected in
calendar year 1996. 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 $934,000,000 in calendar year 1997,
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 1996 $116,000,000 that would have been
distributed as grants based on passenger enplanements to PFC-
charging airports is being redistributed to small airports. In
1997, FAA expects this redistributed amount to increase to
about $123,000,000 under an obligation ceiling of
$1,350,000,000. 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 $50,000,000 below last
year's level, small airports should not be affected because
they will have access in 1997 to this additional amount. And,
as noted above, many other airports are supplementing their
grant funds with PFC's.
AIP FUNDING FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Budget estimate House allowance recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation limitation.................................. $1,350,000,000 $1,300,000,000 $1,460,000,000
Entitlements:
Primary airports...................................... 373,235,433 353,641,246 416,027,122
Cargo airports (3.5 percent).......................... 31,917,154 29,121,503 38,475,300
Alaska supplemental................................... 10,528,980 10,528,980 10,528,980
States (12 percent)................................... 142,486,919 134,701,143 159,813,727
Carryover entitlements................................ 100,000,000 100,000,000 100,000,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal entitlements............................... 658,168,486 627,992,872 724,645,129
=====================================================
Discretionary set-asides:
Noise (12.5 percent).................................. 148,423,874 140,313,690 168,264,298
Reliever airports (5 percent)......................... 59,369,550 56,125,476 66,505,719
Commercial service (1.5 percent)...................... 17,810,865 16,837,643 19,951,716
System planning (0.75 percent)........................ 8,905,432 8,418,821 9,975,858
Military airport program (2.5 percent)................ 29,684,775 28,062,738 33,262,860
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal discretionary set-asides................... 264,194,496 249,758,368 295,950,451
=====================================================
Returned entitlements: Small airport/hub fund............. 102,637,018 97,248,760 114,404,420
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................................... 658,168,486 627,992,872 724,645,129
Total discretionary................................. 691,831,514 672,007,128 735,354,871
-----------------------------------------------------
Grand total......................................... 1,350,000,000 1,300,000,000 1,460,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Based on preliminary enplanement data for calendar year 1995.
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 1997, 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 1997 grant allocations:
California: Sacramento Metropolitan..................... $4,780,000
Colorado: Denver International.......................... 29,911,000
Florida: Daytona Beach Regional......................... 1,700,000
Georgia: Savannah International......................... 2,000,000
Illinois: Scott AFB (reliever).......................... 14,000,000
Indiana: Indianapolis International..................... 13,573,000
Kentucky:
Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky........................ 12,700,000
Standiford Field, Louisville........................ 16,100,000
Louisiana: New Orleans International.................... 11,800,000
Michigan: Detroit Metropolitan.......................... 14,061,000
Mississippi: Golden Triangle Regional................... 400,000
Nevada: Reno Cannon International....................... 6,500,000
New York: Greater Buffalo International................. 8,097,000
Rhode Island: Theodore F. Green State................... 6,500,000
South Carolina:
Hilton Head......................................... 532,000
Florence regional................................... 400,000
Tennessee:
Nashville International............................. 2,180,000
Memphis International............................... 13,770,000
Texas:
Austin (new)........................................ 11,430,000
Dallas/Fort Worth International..................... 12,500,000
Midland............................................. 1,326,732
Virginia:
Washington Dulles International..................... 4,463,000
Washington National................................. 9,384,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 198,107,732
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 $198,107,732 that FAA has committed to
LOI's during fiscal year 1997, the Committee estimates that
approximately $152,061,000 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.
Aircraft Purchase Loan Guarantee Program
(limitation on borrowing authority)
Appropriations, 1996.................................... ($1,600,000)
Budget estimate, 1997...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation
...........................
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.
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 places a zero obligation limitation on borrowings.
Administrative Services Franchise Fund
The Committee has included bill language requested by the
Federal Aviation Administration which allows the agency to
establish an administrative services franchise fund. Such a
fund performs centralized services such as accounting,
training, payroll, travel, duplicating, multimedia, and other
services. In addition to providing such services to the FAA, it
may contract with other agencies, both within and outside the
Department of Transportation. Such centralized services will be
performed at rates to cover all expenses of operation,
including employee benefits and the depreciation of the
administrative services franchise fund's plant and equipment
and the amortization of capital equipment such as software and
hardware.
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
Summary of Fiscal Year 1997 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 $20,042,000,000 would be provided for the activities of the
Federal Highway Administration for fiscal year 1997.
The following table summarizes the fiscal year 1996 program
levels, the fiscal year 1997 budget estimates, the House
allowance, and the Committee's recommendations:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
Program 1996 program 1997 budget House Committee
level estimate allowance recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation on general operating expenses....... (509,660) (652,905) (510,981) (534,846)
Highway-related safety grants \2\.............. 11,000 .............. .............. ...............
(Rescission of contract author- ity)...... (-9,000) .............. .............. ...............
(Liquidation of contract author- ity)..... (11,000) (2,049) (2,049) (2,049)
Federal-aid highways \3\....................... 17,550,000 17,714,000 17,550,000 17,650,000
Exempt Federal-aid obligations................. 2,331,507 1,314,802 2,055,000 2,055,000
Supplemental emergency relief \4\.......... 267,000 .............. .............. ...............
(Liquidation of contract author- ity)..... (19,200,000) (19,800,000) (19,800,000) (19,800,000)
State infrastructure banks..................... .............. 250,000 .............. 250,000
Alameda corridor--direct loan.................. .............. 58,680 .............. ...............
Motor carrier safety grants \2\................ 77,225 85,000 77,425 79,000
(Rescission of contract authority balances) (-33,000) .............. .............. ...............
(Liquidation of contract author- ity)..... (68,000) (74,000) (74,000) (74,000)
Right-of-way revolving fund.................... .............. .............. .............. 8,000
Motor carrier safety \5\....................... (46,000) (49,500) (49,127) (48,900)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................... 20,236,732 19,422,482 19,682,425 20,042,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes reductions pursuant to sections 327, 335, and 349 of Public Law 104-50 and section 31002 of Public
Law 104-134.
\2\ Obligation limitation on contract authority.
\3\ Obligation limitation on contract authority. Also includes estimated additional obligation limitation
pursuant to section 1002(f)(1) of Public Law 102-240.
\4\ Additional $33,000,000 will be available upon request by the President.
\5\ Included within limitation on general operating expenses.
Limitation on General Operating Expenses
Appropriations, 1996.................................... $509,660,000
Budget estimate, 1997................................... 652,905,000
House allowance......................................... 510,981,000
Committee recommendation
534,846,000
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 $534,846,000
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.
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Program 1997 budget House Committee
estimate allowance recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses..... 253,360 250,156 251,106
Procurement savings..... -3,000 -3,000 ..............
Motor carrier safety........ 49,500 49,127 48,900
Contract programs:
Highway research,
development, and
technology............. 81,638 65,725 69,510
Intelligent vehicle/
highway systems
research............... 223,760 115,000 131,150
Technology assessment
and deployment......... 14,846 13,499 13,999
National Highway
Institute.............. 6,000 4,327 5,000
Local Technical
Assistance Program..... 4,100 2,866 4,100
International
transportation......... 500 475 475
Technical assistance--
Russia................. 400 ............ 200
Minority business....... 10,000 9,506 9,506
Transportation
investment analysis.... 1,906 ............ 500
Cost allocation study
(truck size and weight) 1,695 300 400
International scanning
activities............. 800 ............ ..............
South African Program... 400 ............ ..............
Federal lands
contamination site
cleanup................ 2,500 2,500 2,500
Rehabilitation TFHRC.... 500 500 500
National advanced driver
simulator.............. 4,000 ............ ..............
Accountwide adjustment...... ............ ............ -3,000
-------------------------------------------
Total limitation...... 652,905 510,981 534,846
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative Expenses
Management and coordination costs.--The Committee
appreciates the thorough accounting of the administrative
expenses associated with FHWA's research and technology
program, including management and coordination costs and
expects to receive a similar accounting in future budget
justifications. The Committee believes that every effort must
be taken to maximize the amount of funds available for the
contract research and technology program. Consequently, the
Committee is setting a limit of $11,000,000 on M&C expenses.
The Committee is concerned about the practice of using
appropriated funds for a summer jobs program for youth who
might be interested in careers in highway research and
technology. The Committee favors the hiring of qualified
personnel to assist in research and other FHWA
responsibilities.
Budget submission.--The Committee appreciates the increased
detail that was presented in the fiscal year 1997 GOE budget
justification. The submittal by the JPO, which clearly
displayed comparable fiscal year 1996 ITS allocations and
activities funded with ISTEA contract funds, was especially
useful. The JPO's comprehensive responses to the Committee's
questions were also helpful. The ITS budget justification and
the JPO's information sharing and assistance to the Committee
should serve as a model for the entire GOE ``Research and
technology'' account.
The Committee appreciates the fact that FHWA provided the
Research and Technology Coordinating Committee [RTCC] the
opportunity to comment broadly on the development of the FHWA
fiscal year 1997 budget submittal. Increased consultation with
the RTCC in planning the fiscal year 1998 and later budgets
would benefit FHWA. The Committee also greatly appreciates
receiving the advice and guidance of the RTCC.
Because of budgetary limitations, the Committee's allowance
includes the House's recommended reduction of $2,254,000 for
additional civil rights activities.
Training.--FHWA regional and field staff must upgrade and
expand their expertise of ITS technologies that have been
advanced during the last 5 years. Increased knowledge of the
institutional experience that has been acquired also will
facilitate technology transfer. The Committee maintains that a
sufficient number of FHWA field and regional staff will need to
be trained to ensure that quality assistance is provided to
States and MPO's that are planning future ITS projects and
deploying current projects. To this end, the Committee expects
that a high priority for the use of training funds provided
under FHWA's administrative expenses is allocated toward the
retraining of FHWA staff in the ITS area. FHWA should be
prepared to document these expenses by next year.
In addition, the Committee expects FHWA to make substantial
progress in implementing its professional building capacity
program for its public sector partners as well as FTA regional
staff. Achievement of the objectives of this strategic plan
will facilitate more efficient use of limited transportation
funds and implementation of ISTEA goals.
Motor Carrier Safety Operations
The Committee recommends $48,900,000 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 recommends the following changes to the
budget request for this appropriation:
Outreach and educational initiatives.......................... -$400,000
Supplemental funds for NAFTA implementation................... -400,000
Exemption and waiver monitoring............................... +400,000
Reduce various administrative expenses........................ -400,000
Address CDL problems.......................................... +200,000
Outreach and educational initiatives.--A diverse array of
technical assistance and information resources is available
from many private sector vendors; and the Committee is
concerned that additional amounts of Federal funds may become
duplicative of these activities. The Committee fully supports
outreach to the more than 4,600 law enforcement personnel
concerned with motor carrier safety.
A portion of the funds requested was to be allocated to
ensure that industry is aware of the changes emanating from the
zero-base review project. Given the status of this project and
the fact that few, if any, final substantive regulatory changes
from this review are likely during fiscal year 1997, the
Committee recommends a reduction in funds for outreach focus
groups and other educational materials.
NAFTA activities.--The Committee recommends $150,000 for
NAFTA activities. In the past, funds to participate in NAFTA
activities have not been specified in the budget justification,
but have been obtained from within the base program. There has
already occurred a substantial amount of planning and
negotiations; countless meetings with Canada and Mexico;
numerous training sessions; and the distribution of thousands
of information documents on United States safety regulations to
foreign operators. Several million dollars in MCSAP funds have
been provided during the last several years for these
activities; and the Committee believes that the $150,000
requested is more than sufficient to demonstrate U.S.
commitment to international border safety.
Computer equipment.--The Committee objects to the House
recommendation for a decrease in funds for computer equipment
for the OMC. New computer technology facilitates improvements
in the efficiency and effectiveness of OMC safety
investigators. The Committee notes that there are about 48,000
commercial motor carriers with an unsatisfactory or conditional
safety rating that OMC would like to reaudit. Improved computer
equipment will increase the number of carriers contacted by OMC
safety specialists.
Exemption and waiver monitoring.--Sections 343, 344, and
345 of the National Highway Designation Act of 1995 impose new
safety monitoring analysis, and enforcement responsibilities on
the Office of Motor Carriers. For example, the exemption
programs established by the NHS Designation Act will likely
necessitate that OMC reviews at a minimum the safety control
plans of hundreds of carriers. In order for OMC to conduct its
responsibilities and report back to Congress on the costs and
benefits of some of these exemptions, the safety performance of
thousands of drivers will need to be monitored, and additional
audits of insurance records will be critical to check the
validity of safety data submitted by exemption holders. The OMC
already faces a large backlog of at-risk or problem carriers
that require visits from OMC safety specialists. In view of the
additional responsibilities authorized under the act, the
Committee recommends $400,000 to help OMC effectively implement
its responsibility of ensuring that exemptions do not degrade
public safety.
Commercial drivers license issues.--For several years, the
Committee has expressed its concerns about an array of problems
and challenges associated with the Commercial Drivers License
Program. In a report prepared for the Committee, the American
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators [AAMVA] and the
FHWA agreed that the problems identified were real and needed
to be addressed. The Committee notes some of the deficiencies
warranting improvement: development and implementation of
timely electronic transmission of timely driver convictions
from Canada and Mexico; elimination of a CDL holder's ability
to possess a non-CDL; development of required uniform CDL
restriction codes; definition of ``designed to transport'' as
the current design of the CMV; development of required
verification of social security numbers for CDL issue; and
reevaluation of the definition of ``serious traffic
violation''. In addition to these challenges, the Committee is
aware of many other opportunities to improve the CDL program,
namely improved judicial and prosecutorial training and
outreach and improved traffic records. In order to facilitate
progress in addressing the various challenges associated with
improving the CDL program, the Committee recommends $200,000 to
work with the States, the American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators, and other concerned groups.
Safety rating process.--At this time, the Committee objects
to the House proposal to create a new pilot program for the
reasons specified below.
--MCSA of 1990 requirements.--The proposal, if implemented,
could be in violation of certain provisions of the
Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1990, which requires the
Secretary to take an enforcement whenever certain
serious safety violations can be documented. The House
language could force OMC to violate the MCSA of 1990,
by delaying enforcement actions on a carrier with
serious safety violations and knowingly allow such
carriers to continue to operate without an appropriate
and timely enforcement action and thus risk the public
safety.
--CVIS already provides opportunities for improvement before
penalties.--The Commercial Vehicle Information System
[CVIS] Program already provides carriers with
opportunity to improve safety performance prior to
imposing progressively stringent penalties. For
example, the safety performance of carriers that
receive warning letters are given 6 months to improve
their performance before recalculating their Safestat
score. Likewise, at-risk carriers (those with the worst
safety records) are scheduled immediately for a
compliance review and lacking any imminent hazard
situation are also given 6 months to improve their
performance before applying CVIS penalties. During the
6-month monitoring period the carrier is provided every
opportunity (including hiring a safety consultant) to
improve safety performance and remove themselves from
the CVIS monitoring program.
--Need for immediate enforcement action.--Use of a third
party safety service should not interfere with or delay
the use of out-of-service orders, or other enforcement
action in cases where the carrier has demonstrated
serious safety violations or whose operations have been
found to present an imminent hazard to the public
safety. Thus, the proposal could be inconsistent with
an ongoing compliance strategy and not consistent with
the civil penalty criteria specified in the Motor
Carrier Safety Act of 1984.
--Voluntary system already exists.--The current enforcement
system does not prevent carriers from voluntarily
hiring safety consultants and, in fact, a large number
of carriers already employ their safety consultants on
a regular basis.
--Carriers already have the ability to proactively address
safety issues before enforcement action is taken.--
Carriers are able to obtain copies of their carrier
profile from OMC. Carriers can avoid ever being
identified by Safestat by regularly requesting and
reviewing their carrier safety profiles. In this way,
company safety managers can proactively address and
correct driver, vehicle, and safety management problems
within their operations before they become serious. If
fact, most safe trucking companies already have
incorporated this technique into their safety programs.
--OMC certification.--At this time, the concept of requiring
OMC to certify safety service companies would require
FHWA to develop, validate, and manage a separate
certification program. The proposed certification
program would impose additional job responsibilities on
OMC staff already stretched thin and make them even
less able to perform the basic and more important jobs
of promoting safety compliance and enforcing the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.
Administrative savings.--The Committee recommends a
reduction of $600,000 in travel (unrelated to compliance
reviews), printing, and other administrative expenses.
highway research, development, and technology
The Committee recommends a total of $69,510,000 to be
distributed as follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget
Activity/program element Program estimate, House Committee
level, 1996 1997 allowance recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway research and development:
Safety............................................... 8,335 8,768 8,768 8,768
Pavements............................................ 8,791 23,200 19,000 20,000
Structures........................................... 12,558 22,000 13,558 15,558
Environment.......................................... 5,317 5,593 5,717 5,717
Right-of-way......................................... 408 322 322 322
Policy............................................... 5,401 5,681 5,401 5,401
Planning............................................. 5,769 8,300 5,969 5,969
Motor carrier........................................ 7,390 7,774 7,390 7,774
------------------------------------------------------
Total, highway research and development............ 53,969 81,638 65,725 69,510
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within the funds recommended, the Committee has provided
$100,000 to be used by a major national organization dedicated
to grade crossing safety to identify and assess those
strategies, activities, and model programs that most
effectively help communities and States improve grade crossing
safety.
Pavements.--The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for
pavements research and development. Within the Committee's
allowance is $10,000,000 which was requested for the long-term
pavement performance [LTPP] program, including funds for data
analysis. The LTPP is developing testing and design procedures
and information and computer software that can be used by the
States to build better pavements and maintain them longer. This
program will address key deficiencies in the ability of highway
engineers to rehabilitate pavements and create and maintain new
pavements that perform well under modern traffic conditions.
The Committee agrees with both the House and FHWA that support
for the LTPP should be the highest priority in the pavements
R&D program. The LTPP will result in substantial benefits to
the States. Tremendous cost savings will be realized as a
result of the new pavement mixtures, information, and test
procedures resulting from this program. Within the funds
provided, the Committee recommends $2,515,000 for exploratory
research, a new initiative that reflects the recommendations of
the National Science and Technology Council and is consistent
with the general recommendations of the Transportation Research
Board.
The Committee is convinced that a greater research effort
should be undertaken to develop appropriate uses for waste
materials in highway construction. The potential benefits from
such increased uses are significant. The economy benefits from
converting materials now considered waste into productive
resources, and the environment benefits by diverting
significant volumes from existing landfills. At the same time,
the integrity of our transportation infrastructure requires
that proposed uses should be based on careful research to avoid
future environmental or physical performance risks. Therefore,
the Committee recommends $2,000,000 for development of a
systemic approach to expanded waste utilization using
accelerated aging tests to ensure long-term physical and
environmental performance of applications using such materials.
With those issues properly resolved, it should be possible to
identify specific secondary materials and specific applications
in which significant volumes of waste can be properly used
while ensuring long-term effectiveness, and without increasing
overall construction costs.
Structures.--The Committee recommends $15,558,000 for
structures research and development, which represents an
increase of $3,000,000 over the fiscal year 1996 level. An
increase is justified to advance work in several areas,
including bridge management disciplines, high performance
materials, and nondestructive evaluation. These funds will help
accelerate work on the advancement of cost-effective, longer-
lasting steel and concrete structures. Advanced technologies
will help reduce total fabricated costs and meet required
strength, toughness, weldability, and other specified design
property requirements. Within the funds recommended, FHWA shall
allocate $2,000,000 for exploratory research, which is the
amount requested in the budget.
As the Nation undertakes to rehabilitate its domestic
infrastructure, it is becoming increasingly apparent that for
reasons of both environmental protection and longevity,
traditional construction methods and materials are not cost
effective when compared to new designs and composite materials.
In an effort to demonstrate the feasibility of advanced
composite designs for infrastructure application in a marine
environment, the Committee directs that $1,000,000 be available
for the development and installation of composite pilings. It
is expected that these composite pilings will last
significantly longer than traditional materials, without the
threat to the marine environment associated with many of those
traditional materials.
The Committee objects to the language in the House report
concerning calcium magnesium acetate [CMA]. FHWA has already
conducted a significant amount of research and development
related to CMA. Previous research has resulted in the following
studies: environmental evaluation of calcium magnesium acetate;
process development for the production of calcium magnesium
acetate [CMA]; effect of calcium magnesium acetate on pavements
and motor vehicles; corrosion of highway and bridge structural
metals by CMA; field evaluation of calcium magnesium acetate
during the winter of 1986-87; and highway deicing, comparing
salt and calcium magnesium acetate. The Committee, as well as
the Federal Highway Administration, believes that further
development, testing evaluation, or marketing of this material
should be the responsibility of the private sector.
Environment.--Because of budgetary limitations, the
Committee is recommending the same level of funding provided in
fiscal year 1996. The Committee directs the Department of
Transportation to initiate a research program to support a
comprehensive noise prediction model applicable to highway
traffic, aircraft, and railroad noise. The Committee further
directs that a grant of $250,000 be made available to the
National Center for Physical Acoustics to identify scientific
issues which impede accurate noise prediction; to begin
research into propagation phenomena which are not fully
understood; and to assist the Department in the preparation of
a plan to develop an accurate multimodal noise prediction
model. The Department should provide this plan to the Committee
by January 1, 1997.
The Committee further notes its concern about commercial
trucking on Federal facilities and the study of environmental
effects of alternative routes, and directs that FHWA apply
$400,000 to study the environmental impact of alternative
commercial trucking routes to national sites, such as the
Hoover Dam/Boulder Bridge.
Right-of-way.--The Committee is recommending the amount
requested.
Policy research.--The Committee recommends $5,401,000, the
same amount provided last year. Funds for transportation
investment analysis should be included in the future as part of
the policy research budget.
Planning.--The Committee recommends $5,969,000 for planning
research and directs that at least $2,000,000 of the section
6005 funds be used to develop the TRANSIMS, which is an
advanced travel forecasting project. TRANSIMS will assist
States and metropolitan planning organizations in meeting the
analytical requirements of the ISTEA and the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, and in analyzing the travel impacts of new
technologies resulting from the National Intelligent
Transportation Systems Program. The FHWA is encouraged to
reduce the costs of TRANSIMS through carefully controlling
costs and seeking opportunities for cost sharing with other
agencies, including the Federal Transit Administration and the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Motor carrier research.--The Committee recommends
$7,774,000 for motor carrier research, which is the amount
requested. Within the funds provided, no more than $1,000,000
will be used for services and partnerships. The Committee has
carefully reviewed the research findings of the new analysis
unit of the Office of Motor Carriers and fully expects that the
entire $2,200,000 requested to support information analysis
will be allocated during fiscal year 1997.
The Committee is concerned that the release of the results
of the phase I fatigue research has taken so long and expects
the FHWA Administrator to ensure that other components of the
FHWA-sponsored fatigued research are completed within a more
timely manner. This research will be critical for the planned
rulemaking to revise the hours of service regulations. The
Committee is displeased that the advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking on hours of service was not issued within the
timeframe required in the Interstate Commerce Commission
Termination Act. The Committee is also displeased that a draft
of the OMC 5-year strategic research plan was not made
available as requested.
Ongoing research indicates a need to provide a better
scientific and empirical basis for the out-of-service criteria
and to ensure that the inspection process is more closely tied
to effective crash reduction measures. Such research and
associated risk assessment would strengthen the MCSAP
inspection process, improve the safety regulations, and more
closely couple the inspection process to measures successful in
crash reduction. Consequently, the Committee directs that
$500,000 of the funds provided will be used to begin the
process of accomplishing these objectives.
intelligent transportation systems
The administration's request of $223,760,000 for
intelligent transportation systems [ITS] included $42,935,000
for research and $28,125,000 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 $131,150,000 to be
distributed as follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program level, Budget House Committee
1996 estimate, 1997 allowance recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intelligent vehicle highway systems:
Research and development \1\................ 49,916 42,935 27,000 32,000
Operational tests........................... 31,052 28,125 53,000 55,900
Automated highway system.................... 14,000 30,700 20,000 27,000
Architecture and standards.................. .............. 7,050 5,000 6,000
Evaluation.................................. .............. 4,000 2,000 2,000
Mainstreaming............................... .............. 950 .............. 250
Model deployment............................ .............. 100,000 .............. ..............
Program and systems support................. 10,034 10,000 8,000 8,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total, ITS................................ 105,002 223,760 115,000 131,150
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes commercial vehicle operations.
Research and development.--The Committee recommends a total
of $32,000,000 for ITS research and development, which is
$10,935,000 less than the amount requested. For the commercial
vehicle operations [CVO] research and development, the
Committee recommends $7,000,000, including the $5,100,000
requested for the SAFER/MCSAP sites. The Committee endorses the
House directive that FHWA ensure that the primary focus of the
entire CVO program be on safety considerations. The Committee
is pleased that the initial goals for the SAFER initiative have
been accomplished and appreciates FHWA's commitment to
continued timely completion of this initiative. The benefits of
the investment in this project are numerous. For example,
inspections targeted by the inspection selection system, an
integral part of the SAFER system, give a 30-percent higher
out-of-service rate for drivers and a 75-percent higher out-of-
service rate for vehicles, thus improving the targeting of the
inspection process on high-risk drivers and vehicles.
For crash avoidance research, the Committee is recommending
$11,000,000, which is $4,400,000 below the administration's
request. These funds together with the moneys recommended under
the operational test program and ISTEA funds will allow for
substantial growth in NHTSA's ITS safety program above the
fiscal year 1996 level.
Operational tests.--The Committee recommends $55,900,000
for operational tests to be allocated in the following manner:
$10,000,000 to advance real-time adaptive traffic control
technology and incident management, $3,000,000 for advanced
vehicle control systems, $12,900,000 for completion of the
CVISN and its prototype testing and substantial progress on the
pilot projects, and $30,000,000 for the integration of
Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure [ITI] technologies.
Each of these projects is of national significance, is
requested in the budget, and is consistent with the intent of
title VI(B) of ISTEA. The Director of the JPO and the FHWA
Administrator shall ensure that the CVISN activity, as well as
other ITS/CVO initiatives, minimizes the use of both ISTEA and
GOE funds allocated toward outreach and training activities.
The CVISN is one of the key research and operational tests
within the National ITS Program. The Committee complements FHWA
and the Joint Program Office on the progress made in the
prototype testing of the CVISN and the initial planning for its
eventual deployment, starting with the pilot projects. FHWA
will continue to play a significant role in the development,
testing and model deployment of standards for communications
among the States, clearinghouses, safety systems, and other
integral components of the CVISN. This process will include the
development of sound cost estimates to operate CVISN and the
documentation of its costs and benefits for State regulatory
and enforcement agencies, carriers, and others. The resulting
information is necessary to lay the foundation for key
decisionmakers to determine an appropriate course of action to
implement CVISN throughout the States.
The Committee directs that FHWA accelerate its work with
all of the potential users of CVISN to determine how the long-
term operation and financing of CVISN should proceed. The
Administrator is to submit a detailed plan that lays the
foundation for a smooth transition before 2001 from a federally
financed to a user-financed system that will ensure the long-
term operation and improvement of this system. None of the
funds provided for the CVISN project will be used for
evaluation purposes. Funds to conduct such activity are
provided under evaluations.
Within the funds recommended for CVO, the Committee is
providing $500,000 to advance the concept and technology of an
automated compliance review. Before April 1, 1997, the FHWA
Administrator is requested to submit a letter to both the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations identifying the future
direction and challenges associated with this effort, together
with a spending plan on the resources needed to bring this
project to completion, including an analysis of expected
deployment costs and benefits.
Because of budget limitations, the Committee is unable to
recommend the entire amount requested for the operational
testing of important crash avoidance technologies. The
Committee expects that ISTEA funds will be used to support the
new operational test project not funded under LGOE.
While much ITS activity is concentrated on the detection of
incidents and on freeway surveillance, efforts also need to be
focused on coordinating multiagency responses and clearance of
incidents. There are both technical and institutional
opportunities to reduce traffic congestion caused by poor
incident.
The Committee expects that FHWA's request for $900,000 in
ISTEA funding to enhance public and private sector incident
management activities will be fully funded. Given the extent of
traffic congestion problems that plague our roadways the
Committee maintains that the ISTEA funds will not be
sufficient. Consequently, within the funds provided for traffic
control, the Committee directs that $500,000 be used for
support of the work of the coalition, to address the
institutional issues of incident management, and promote the
use of technologies, expert systems and communications
equipment and software to aid responding agencies. The
Committee encourages FHWA to fully exploit every opportunity to
advance and use new technologies to improve incident response.
Automated highway systems.--The AHS Consortium, assisted by
FHWA, has made significant progress in advancing the AHS
Program. Because of budgetary limitations, the Committee
recommends $27,000,000 to continue progress, which is
$3,700,000 less than requested.
The Committee agrees with the House that FHWA and the AHS
Consortium members must ensure that the funds provided are
spent primarily on advancing new technology and developing and
selecting concepts needed for the AHS prototype. The Committee
directs FHWA to reduce the amount of Federal funds allowed for
the overhead costs of the AHS consortium and to take all
necessary steps to minimize the costs of the 1997 demonstration
project. The Committee limits expenses for outreach activities
related to the AHS to $50,000. FHWA and the AHS consortium will
conduct the best outreach possible by scaling down the expenses
and demonstrating the success of its 1997 demonstration.
Foreseeable budgetary limitations require the participants to
reexamine rigorously the complexity, scope, and vehicle mix of
the prototype configuration subject to validation testing; and
to work toward completion of the initial cooperative agreement
within the time line originally specified.
The Committee strongly disagrees with the House language
prohibiting the use of funds for the incorporation of
commercial vehicles in the AHS. The testing of new safety
technology and opportunities to improve the safety and economic
productivity of the commercial motor vehicle industry are two
of several benefits to be realized.
Architecture and standards.--The Committee recommends
$6,000,000 for architecture and standards support, which is
$1,050,000 less than requested. The Committee believes it is
essential to reduce expenses associated with the cooperative
agreements initiated with the standards developing
organizations and those entities maintaining the systems
architecture. The Department's effort to expedite timely and
integrated ITS standards development is of fundamental
importance.
Evaluations.--Because of budgetary limitations, $2,000,000
is provided for evaluations, of which no less than $300,000
will be used to analyze the costs and benefits of the CVISN
prototype/pilot program.
Mainstreaming.--The Committee generally agrees with the
House approach to reduce funding for outreach activities, there
is one area, however, that deserves consideration, namely
public transit authorities. The Committee recommends $250,000
for outreach activities directed only at transit authorities.
Program support.--The Committee recommends $8,000,000 for
program management. The Committee agrees with the House
suggestion that FHWA shall avail itself more of the expertise
and advice of ITS AMERICA in the formulation of future budget
requests. Such input would be consistent with title VI(B) of
the ISTEA and the cooperative agreement governing this advisory
committee.
The Committee directs that the JPO will ensure that any
organization which conducts the information clearinghouse
function on behalf of the National ITS Program will make
available all reports and information to the public at no
charge and without the requirement to become a member of any
organization. The Committee directs the Director of the Joint
Program Office to reduce funds to no more than $2,000,000 for
CVO State, regional, and national forums; to no more than
$300,000 for mainstreaming-planning; to no more than $500,000
for ITI technical assistance; to no more than $200,000 for ITI
outreach; and to no more than $100,000 for CVO outreach. The
Committee does not approve any funds for the nationwide
strategy for Hazmat incident response. This strategy should be
developed by FHWA staff.
technology assessment and deployment
The Committee recommends $13,999,000 which is $1,500,000
more than the fiscal year 1996 level. The Office of Technology
Applications and the Office of Highway Safety [OHS] are
conducting a multifaceted and innovative safety deployment
program. To further strengthen these initiatives, the Committee
directs that $3,950,000 be obtained from GOE and $1,725,000 be
obtained from the section 6005 funds. The Committee agrees with
the House initiative to provide assistance to States and local
governments in setting reasonable and enforceable speed limits.
Within the funds provided, the Committee recommends
$300,000 to be allocated to the OHS to further expand its
outreach activities, an initiative that is stressed in its 5
year strategic plan. To this end, the Committee would like to
see evidence next year of OHS using advanced information
technology to expand its outreach to the motoring public,
pedestrians, and bicyclists.
Consistent with the provisions of section 6005 of ISTEA,
the FHWA has sought to promote heated bridge technologies
through two formal solicitations, an active outreach program
involving contacts with bridge engineers throughout the
country, and development of a promotional video. Because of the
complexity of the technologies, limitations on placement, and
unknown future operating costs, many highway agencies have
deterred from participating in the program. Despite its
vigorous efforts to work with the States, FHWA simply has been
unable to fund a sufficient number of worthwhile projects to
meet the ISTEA objective of installation of heated bridge
technologies on a minimum of 10 bridges per fiscal year with a
funding level of $4,000,000 per fiscal year.
FHWA informed the Committee that a funding level of
$1,000,000 for fiscal year 1996 and $1,000,000 for fiscal year
1997 would allow for the evaluation of the existing heated
bridge projects and the successful completion of the program.
Consequently, the Committee allows FHWA to apply the balance of
the funds originally designated for heated bridge technologies
and any expected unobligated balances to other technology areas
within the purpose of section 6005 that are of higher priority
interest to States and local jurisdictions.
national highway institute
The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the National
Highway Institute, which is an increase of $673,000 above the
fiscal year 1996 level. Primarily during the last 5 years, the
Committee has supported an intensive research and technology
program that has resulted in a substantial number of new
advances which are now ready to be incorporated into State and
local highway programs. The Committee has increased funding for
the NHI to address the backlog of training courses that need to
be delivered to help realize the benefits of these past
investments in research and development. The Committee also
expects to see evidence next year of new ITS courses developed
and delivered with these moneys.
local technical assistance program
The Committee recommends $4,100,000 for the LTAP and
objects to FHWA's request to use $500,000 of these funds for
the National Rural Initiative Program, which was developed to
focus Federal programs within each State to address the needs
and concerns of rural communities and is not directly related
to the purposes of LTAP.
The funds recommended herein will serve several purposes,
including enhancing the participation of the LTAP centers in
the Safe Communities Program in such areas as improved data
collection, traffic safety audits, improved traffic and sign
inventory management and other highway safety initiatives such
as those discussed in last year's report; improving the LTAP
technology transfer clearinghouse, facilitating the deployment
of proven SHRP technology at the local level, and addressing
the gap between the state of the practice of highway technology
and the state of the art.
international transportation activities
The Committees recommends $475,000 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--russia
The Committee recommends $200,000 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.
minority business
The Committee concurs with the House allowance and fully
funds the request of $9,506,000 for the minority business
activity.
transportation investment analysis
The Committee has provided $500,000 for the transportation
investment analysis activity, and believes that these funds can
be used to help the Federal Highway Administration study new
innovative financing mechanisms and to monitor the success and
experiences of the new State Infrastructure Bank Program.
COST ALLOCATION STUDY (TRUCK SIZE AND WEIGHT)
The Committee recommends $400,000 for the cost allocation
study to be allocated as follows: $300,000 to develop software,
data, and procedures for use by the States in conducting their
own highway cost allocation studies, and $100,000 to analyze a
variety of complex alternative highway user fee structures
relevant to reauthorization.
FHWA was instructed last year to complete truck size and
weight analyses within the funds provided in the fiscal year
1996 appropriation. Consequently, no additional funds are
recommended for this purpose and the Committee prohibits the
use of section 6005 funds to continue work on truck size and
weight or related policy research.
international scanning
The Committee has received information detailing an array
of benefits that have resulted from past international scanning
activities. Such activities should, however, continue to be
funded using ISTEA funds.
south africa program
The Committee has not provided the requested funding for
the South Africa program. It is concerned that there could be a
proliferation of these types of request for special assistance
from various countries: witness special requested earmarks for
Russia and South Africa. The Committee believes that FHWA is
best served by working in conjunction with the State
Department, which is in the business of providing assistance to
foreign governments.
federal lands contamination cleanup
The Committee recommends $2,500,000 for the environmental
cleanup at the materials laboratory site on the Denver Federal
Center. FHWA has, since 1990, used funds appropriated for other
purposes to deal with this situation without notifying the
Committee. FHWA must be more forthcoming in the future when it
uses appropriated funds for any purposes other than those
originally in the budget justification and funded by the
Committee. FHWA managers should note that the Committee has
reduced the amount of funds recommended for the contract
program in order to pay for these expenses.
The Committee agrees with the House assessment of FHWA's
handling of the environmental cleanup at the materials facility
in Colorado. The letter to be submitted to both the House and
Senate Appropriations Committee will specify the exact costs
that are likely to be encountered to restore this property to a
State of environmental compliance. In addition, the letter
should respond to the following questions: Why weren't the
Appropriations Committees informed several years ago about
these environmental problems and their associated costs? How
soon will FHWA fully comply with its responsibilities under
Federal and State law?
national advanced driver simulator [nads]
The Committee has not approved funding for the NADS under
operations, but recommends that $14,000,000 of ISTEA contract
funds be used for this purpose. The Department has repeatedly
stated that the NADS is of critical importance to advancing
progress on the objectives of the National ITS Program. The
Committee agrees with the House that the NADS is an innovative,
high-risk analytical test project that has received limited
non-Federal cost-sharing.
Accountwide Adjustment
The Committee concurs with the House's reduction of
$3,000,000 for procurement savings; but has assessed the
reduction against the whole ``Limitation on general operating
expenses'' account, and not specifically against FHWA's
administrative expenses.
General Provisions
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.
Miller Highway.--The Committee has deleted the House
general provision (sec. 330) which would have prohibited the
use of any of the funds in this act for improvements to the
Miller Highway, which is located in New York City, NY.
Federal Highway Administration takedown.--The Committee has
included bill language requested by the administration which
increases the administrative takedown from the highway program
from 3\3/4\ percent to 4\3/4\ percent.
Mineola rail grade crossing project.--Over several years,
the Committee had appropriated funds for this important rail/
highway grade crossing safety project. The Committee has
included a general provision to permit the balance of funds
remaining from previous appropriations for the Mineola, NY,
railroad grade crossing project to be used for other grade
crossing improvements in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, NY.
Indiana highways.--The Committee has included bill language
in title IV which allows the State of Indiana to use funds
previously provided for a study in Whiting, IN, to be used for
a congestion relief project in Merrillville, IN.
other
Shiloh, MT, 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 to take
appropriate actions in authorizing these funds.
Saddle Road, Hawaii.--The Committee is pleased with the
manner in which the Saddle Road project on the Island of Hawaii
has progressed, and hopes that this process will continue.
Saddle Road improvements will be of great benefit to the
military as well as island residents. The Committee is aware of
Saddle Road's hazardous conditions and the large number of
accidents that occur on the road each year. The Committee
believes that remedying these hazardous conditions should
continue to be a priority.
Highway-Related Safety Grants
(Liquidation of Contract Authorization)
(Highway Trust Fund)
Appropriations, 1996.................................... ($11,000,000)
Budget estimate, 1997................................... (2,049,000)
House allowance......................................... (2,049,000)
Committee recommendation
(2,049,000)
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. This program was proposed to be merged with a
similar program in the NHTSA.
The Committee recommends $2,049,000 for liquidation of
contract authority for highway-related safety grants. These
additional funds will allow the Federal Highway Administration
to meet payments of prior-year unpaid obligations.
Federal-Aid Highways
(Liquidation of Contract Authorization)
(Highway Trust Fund)
Appropriations, 1996
($19,200,000,000)
Budget estimate, 1997
(19,800,000,000)
House allowance
(19,800,000,000)
Committee recommendation
(19,800,000,000)
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. 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 $19,800,000,000 for the Federal-aid highways program, which
is the same as the House allowance and the administration's
request.
Federal-Aid Highways
(Limitation on Obligations)
(Highway Trust Fund)
Appropriations, 1996
($17,550,000,000)
Budget estimate, 1997
(17,714,000,000)
House allowance
(17,550,000,000)
Committee recommendation
(17,650,000,000)
The administration's proposal of $17,714,000,000 includes
previously appropriated or authorized accounts other than
emergency relief and minimum allocation.
In addition to programs covered by the obligation ceiling,
there are activities that are exempt from the ceiling. Under
the administration's proposal, it is assumed that
$1,314,802,000 is outside the limitation which brings the
administration's program total to $19,029,000,000.
Under the House's allowance, which includes an obligation
ceiling of $17,550,000,000 it is estimated that programs exempt
from the limitation would total approximately $2,055,000,000
for a total program level of $19,605,000,000.
The Committee recommends an obligation ceiling of
$17,650,000,000 for the regular Federal-aid formula program. In
addition, the programs outside the obligation ceiling are
estimated at $2,055,000,000 for a total program level of
$19,705,000,000.
Estimated fiscal year 1997 obligation limitation distributed at
$17,650,000,000
State Current law
Alabama................................................. $272,547,196
Alaska.................................................. 205,452,946
Arizona................................................. 197,839,865
Arkansas................................................ 176,614,504
California.............................................. 1,416,567,040
Colorado................................................ 200,767,393
Connecticut............................................. 356,229,948
Delaware................................................ 78,039,747
District of Columbia.................................... 79,484,906
Florida................................................. 603,168,336
Georgia................................................. 406,382,518
Hawaii.................................................. 122,599,965
Idaho................................................... 106,447,516
Illinois................................................ 665,243,369
Indiana................................................. 344,003,816
Iowa.................................................... 199,375,572
Kansas.................................................. 206,521,727
Kentucky................................................ 227,360,713
Louisiana............................................... 237,383,689
Maine................................................... 92,214,321
Maryland................................................ 267,491,518
Massachusetts........................................... 695,579,969
Michigan................................................ 470,412,809
Minnesota............................................... 254,092,683
Mississippi............................................. 184,792,636
Missouri................................................ 359,208,625
Montana................................................. 155,956,631
Nebraska................................................ 140,078,573
Nevada.................................................. 105,323,760
New Hampshire........................................... 86,166,546
New Jersey.............................................. 482,366,090
New Mexico.............................................. 170,290,773
New York................................................ 1,052,396,004
North Carolina.......................................... 402,075,905
North Dakota............................................ 102,794,085
Ohio.................................................... 598,771,278
Oklahoma................................................ 229,428,624
Oregon.................................................. 204,235,674
Pennsylvania............................................ 665,627,026
Rhode Island............................................ 86,464,974
South Carolina.......................................... 212,640,951
South Dakota............................................ 112,176,469
Tennessee............................................... 327,984,230
Texas................................................... 992,016,359
Utah.................................................... 126,583,256
Vermont................................................. 79,072,570
Virginia................................................ 343,879,367
Washington.............................................. 326,468,695
West Virginia........................................... 159,945,704
Wisconsin............................................... 294,690,116
Wyoming................................................. 112,077,259
Puerto Rico............................................. 76,665,754
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal.......................................... 16,072,000,000
Administration.......................................... 532,000,000
Federal lands........................................... 426,000,000
Reserve................................................. 620,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 17,650,000,000
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 90 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 1997 are based on fiscal year 1995
contributions. 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 1982, 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 table depicts the amount of funds contributed
to and received from the fund since its inception.
COMPARISON OF FEDERAL HIGHWAY TRUST FUND RECEIPTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE STATES AND FEDERAL-AID APPORTIONMENTS AND ALLOCATIONS FROM THE FUND--FISCAL YEARS
1957-95 \1\
[Dollars in thousands]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payments into the fund \2\ Apportionments and allocations Ratio of apportionments and
-------------------------------- from the fund \3\ allocations to payments
---------------------------------------------------------------
State Fiscal year Cumulated Cumulated Cumulated
1995 since July 1, Fiscal year since July 1, Fiscal year since July 1,
1956 1995 1956 1995 1956
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................................. $453,217 $5,810,236 $357,493 $6,696,015 0.79 1.15
Alaska.................................................. 41,215 596,358 238,302 4,156,911 5.78 6.97
Arizona................................................. 360,334 4,156,271 314,005 5,184,640 .87 1.25
Arkansas................................................ 296,943 3,881,007 284,629 3,878,623 .96 1.00
California.............................................. 2,115,834 30,803,323 2,081,677 29,863,744 .98 .97
Colorado................................................ 260,695 3,825,575 238,668 5,205,668 .92 1.36
Connecticut............................................. 209,722 3,517,298 393,038 6,279,129 1.87 1.79
Delaware................................................ 59,509 884,363 81,869 1,343,968 1.38 1.52
District of Columbia.................................... 26,425 540,339 111,581 2,291,929 4.22 4.24
Florida................................................. 1,035,177 13,118,090 828,598 11,904,585 .80 .91
Georgia................................................. 783,874 9,446,014 582,602 9,041,412 .74 .96
Hawaii.................................................. 54,610 764,786 122,350 3,042,620 2.24 3.98
Idaho................................................... 111,130 1,430,270 180,973 2,584,288 1.63 1.81
Illinois................................................ 694,896 12,501,341 729,893 14,077,584 1.05 1.13
Indiana................................................. 568,030 8,086,645 443,255 7,099,723 .78 .88
Iowa.................................................... 232,938 4,085,589 252,475 4,778,747 1.08 1.17
Kansas.................................................. 228,956 3,773,793 222,449 4,235,266 .97 1.12
Kentucky................................................ 399,732 5,091,617 299,866 5,588,878 .75 1.10
Louisiana............................................... 350,283 5,442,527 299,354 7,058,618 .85 1.30
Maine................................................... 110,735 1,625,117 132,673 1,859,111 1.20 1.14
Maryland................................................ 344,634 5,209,742 453,520 7,996,887 1.32 1.53
Massachusetts........................................... 370,469 6,032,405 787,930 10,326,453 2.13 1.71
Michigan................................................ 689,984 11,050,375 636,385 10,093,973 .92 .91
Minnesota............................................... 288,655 5,296,828 347,546 6,848,994 1.20 1.29
Mississippi............................................. 269,181 3,758,837 217,920 3,843,984 .81 1.02
Missouri................................................ 531,814 7,716,796 444,719 7,507,268 .84 .97
Montana................................................. 100,678 1,443,221 192,550 3,541,698 1.91 2.45
Nebraska................................................ 160,774 2,423,719 149,417 2,861,488 .93 1.18
Nevada.................................................. 138,502 1,482,337 134,909 2,392,847 .97 1.61
New Hampshire........................................... 79,721 1,149,572 94,027 1,659,907 1.18 1.44
New Jersey.............................................. 570,497 8,735,328 584,365 9,038,201 1.02 1.03
New Mexico.............................................. 166,515 2,331,686 200,750 3,300,588 1.21 1.42
New York................................................ 904,465 14,972,854 1,097,971 18,225,346 1.21 1.22
North Carolina.......................................... 639,323 8,638,113 523,951 7,487,096 .82 .87
North Dakota............................................ 74,497 1,096,175 140,621 2,146,783 1.89 1.96
Ohio.................................................... 757,533 13,333,457 708,641 12,433,900 .94 .93
Oklahoma................................................ 348,204 5,134,760 275,192 4,476,186 .79 .87
Oregon.................................................. 270,149 3,912,879 254,296 4,730,564 .94 1.21
Pennsylvania............................................ 882,762 13,673,846 1,068,686 15,892,145 1.21 1.16
Rhode Island............................................ 55,313 963,699 116,810 2,176,359 2.11 2.26
South Carolina.......................................... 383,896 4,614,722 198,150 4,159,438 .52 .90
South Dakota............................................ 75,269 1,165,687 139,918 2,305,328 1.86 1.98
Tennessee............................................... 495,851 6,881,871 402,426 7,031,446 .81 1.02
Texas................................................... 1,583,125 22,863,465 1,293,611 19,862,498 .82 .87
Utah.................................................... 160,045 2,065,098 153,762 3,550,613 .96 1.72
Vermont................................................. 57,897 730,359 86,531 1,638,362 1.49 2.24
Virginia................................................ 571,718 7,549,919 420,158 8,896,048 .73 1.18
Washington.............................................. 375,358 5,407,531 291,589 8,736,024 .78 1.62
West Virginia........................................... 162,736 2,431,962 243,195 5,007,164 1.49 2.06
Wisconsin............................................... 422,061 5,990,472 376,713 5,364,708 .89 .90
Wyoming................................................. 93,484 1,226,320 139,494 2,445,928 1.49 1.99
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................. 20,419,365 298,664,594 20,371,503 342,149,683 1.00 1.15
American Samoa.......................................... .............. .............. 4,256 45,014 .............. ..............
Guam.................................................... .............. .............. 14,368 120,318 .............. ..............
Northern Marianas....................................... .............. .............. 4,236 29,180 .............. ..............
Puerto Rico............................................. .............. .............. 87,799 1,325,611 .............. ..............
Virgin Islands.......................................... .............. .............. 18,728 124,046 .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand total....................................... 20,419,365 298,664,594 20,500,890 343,793,852 1.00 1.15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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; 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
1996 interstate construction funds apportioned during fiscal year 1995.
\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 overstated by $1,590,000,000 due to a fiscal year 1994 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.
\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 alcohol safety incentive grants and the
Woodrow Wilson Bridge.
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 $33,314,575 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, 1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 77,459
Providence.
New Jersey........................ New York City....... 234,755
New York City- 1,388,601
Trenton.
New York.......................... New York City....... 11,875,419
Rhode Island...................... Rhode Island........ 4,003,336
Tennessee......................... Memphis............. 1,409,446
---------------
Totals...................... .................... 33,314,575
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Amounts are in Federal funds and assume full obligation of the
fiscal year 1996 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 FHWA to give priority consideration
to the Missisquoi Bay Bridge, VT; the Wickliffe-Cairo Bridge,
Ballard County, KY; and the Shadle Bridge, Mason County, WV,
consistent with existing criteria.
discretionary interstate 4-r
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 1997. The ISTEA
legislation distributes mostly all of these funds by statutory
formula. However, $65,000,000 of National Highway System funds
are set aside for 4-R work. The Committee directs FHWA to
continue the effort on Interstate 5, OR, and give priority
consideration to the interchange connection of Interstates 15,
515, and 95 in Las Vegas, NV, and Interstate 15 in Salt Lake
City, UT.
federal lands highway programs
Consistent with section 1032 of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 that provides funds for
projects that promote tourism and recreational travel. The
Committee directs that priority consideration be given the
following projects: an interchange on the Natchez Trace Parkway
near Clinton, MS; upgrading of the Pahrump Highway, NV; and
$3,700,000 for the Columbia River Gorge Highway, OR.
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 May 1996, $71,000,000 of these funds
were available for distribution which is expected to occur in
fiscal year 1997.
ferryboat and facilities
Under Public Law 102-240, $18,000,000 is available in
fiscal year 1997 for ferryboat and facilities construction.
Within this amount the Committee directs that $3,000,000 be
available for a ferryboat for the Metlakatla, AK, project, and
$2,500,000 for a ferry terminal at Clinton, WA.
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. The Committee directs that, out of
construction grants, $2,000,000 be available for the covered
bridge restoration project in Vermont.
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(h), the Committee
directs that the Hoosier Heartland industrial corridor
(Indiana), the Heartland Expressway (South Dakota/Nebraska),
and State Highway 71, Alaska, 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 in fiscal year 1997
for scenic byways. Out of these funds, the Committee directs
that $750,000 be available to prevent development on the Blue
Ridge Parkway in North Carolina and $1,400,000 for Mount Rogers
National Recreational Area Virginia State Route 600 upgrade.
INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
House allowance recommendation \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utah [ATMS]........................ $3,000,000 $7,000,000
Inglewood, CA...................... 1,000,000 1,000,000
Houston corridor, TX............... 2,400,000 ..................
I-10 Mobile, AL.................... 4,000,000 ..................
VA/MD capital beltway.............. 5,000,000 ..................
Operation Respond, Maryland........ 1,000,000 ..................
Kansas City, MO (region)........... ............... 5,000,000
University of North Dakota......... 1,000,000 1,000,000
Minnesota guidestar................ 5,900,000 ..................
Moorhead, MN....................... 100,000 100,000
Texas Transportation Institute..... 600,000 600,000
Nashville, TN...................... 1,000,000 ..................
United States/Canada CVO........... ............... 2,000,000
TRANSCOM, New York/New Jersey...... ............... 5,500,000
Rochester, NY, congestion
management........................ ............... 2,800,000
Pennsylvania Turnpike.............. 4,000,000 3,000,000
Urban Transportation Safety Systems
Center (Philadelphia)............. ............... 500,000
New York State Thruway............. ............... 5,000,000
National Transportation Center,
Oakdale, NY....................... 4,000,000 ..................
Advanced railroad/highway crossings ............... 2,500,000
Hazardous materials monitoring
system............................ 3,000,000 ..................
Oregon green light CVO project..... 5,000,000 9,700,000
National advanced driver simulator
\2\............................... ............... 14,000,000
Rensselaer County, I-90 connector
\3\............................... ............... 2,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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\ These funds are expected to be derived from section 6058(b) of
Public Law 102-240.
\3\ These funds are reprogrammed from the Southern State Parkway, New
York Inform system.
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. Because the national advanced
driving simulator [NADS] will be used to evaluate numerous ITS
options, the Committee recommends that NADS become a part of
the formal ITS program and coordinated through the Joint
Program Office. The Committee further directs the Joint Program
Office to coordinate the development of this simulator with
others being developed under the ITS program, and where
appropriate to consolidate efforts.
Right-of-Way Revolving Fund
(Limitation on Direct Loans)
(Highway Trust Fund)
Appropriations, 1996....................................................
Budget estimate, 1997...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................ $8,000,000
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.
The administration requested a prohibition on further
obligations for 1997. The Committee has included bill language
to allow for the obligation or net reimbursements, that is,
when repayments exceed other costs. It is estimated that
$8,000,000 is necessary to cover the new, net loans.
Motor Carrier Safety Grants
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(Highway Trust Fund)
Appropriations, 1996.................................... ($68,000,000)
Budget estimate, 1997................................... (74,000,000)
House allowance......................................... (74,000,000)
Committee recommendation
(74,000,000)
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 $74,000,000 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 $79,000,000 for motor
carrier safety grants. This is $6,000,000 below the level
requested by the administration and $1,575,000 above the House
allowance and expects the funds to be distributed as follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
1996 1997 budget House Committee
appropriation estimate allowance recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic grants to States.......................... 59,000 63,537 59,800 60,075
Administrative expenses......................... 825 1,063 825 825
Traffic enforcement............................. 6,900 9,000 7,200 8,000
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......................... 1,750 2,000 1,750 1,750
Uniformity grants............................... 3,450 3,450 2,500 2,500
Uniformity working groups....................... 450 450 350 350
Commercial vehicle information sys- tem........ 1,500 2,000 1,500 2,000
Drug interdiction assistance.................... 500 .............. .............. ..............
Research and development........................ 500 500 500 500
Public education................................ 850 500 500 500
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... 77,225 85,000 77,425 79,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Verification of out-of-service defects.--Since 1989, the
Committee has expressed its concerns regarding the problem of
drivers violating out-of-service orders issued by MCSAP
officers. In response, the FHWA and the States have initiated a
variety of efforts to begin to reduce this challenge to the
integrity of the MCSAP inspection process. Implementation of
the peer review recommendations on enforcement strategies and
increased State participation in compliance reviews are part of
the solution. Despite these efforts, recent data from a
carefully designed field evaluation conducted by the States
with FHWA's guidance indicate that still roughly 16 percent of
those vehicles/drivers declared out-of-service and then later
rechecked during follow-up covert operations continue to
violate out-of-service orders.
Although the Committee recognizes that covert operations
are expensive, this investment serves as a deterrent to those
that would seek to subterfuge the intent of the MCSAP. An
emphasis on covert operations should continue during fiscal
year 1997 for several reasons. It is essential that the
baseline data started last year be continued, even at a reduced
sample size, so that comparable data are available to monitor
progress in addressing this problem. The Committee maintains
that those States that continue to have a substantial problem
with violators of out-of-service orders will need additional
funds to deal with this challenge. Furthermore, most States
have already adopted provisions that impose a 3-month license
suspension and a $1,000 minimum penalty on any driver convicted
of violating an out-of-service order. Because all States will
soon have these sanctions, the deterrent value of carefully
designed covert operations will increase. New and innovative
approaches to covert operations that are not being funded with
ITS moneys could be fostered to reduce the costs of this
enforcement strategy. Consequently, the Committee's allowance
includes a total of $1,000,000 to be allocated among the
various covert verification strategies specified above. Any
verification activity funded above will be in addition to those
originally specified in each State's enforcement plan and are
in addition to those activities that are required under part
350 of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety regulations.
The Committee strongly endorses actions taken by several
States to inform any driver issued an out-of-service order for
either driver or vehicle violations of the consequences of
violating such an order. The Committee agrees with the House
directive regarding warn- ings to drivers of the consequences
of violating an out-of-service order. Many States have already
incorporated such a warning into their inspection process form
and hopefully through the efforts of the Commercial Vehicle
Safety Alliance and the FHWA more States will implement this
strategy.
Administrative takedown and MCSAP travel expenses.--The
Committee fully supports the House initiative to limit expenses
associated with the Challenge contest and agrees with efforts
to reduce travel and meeting expenses in order to maximize the
amount of funds available for MCSAP inspection and traffic
enforcement activities.
Alameda Corridor Project Loan Program
Appropriations, 1996....................................................
Budget estimate, 1997................................... $58,680,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation
...........................
The National Highway System Designation Act of 1995
included the Alameda transportation corridor as a high-priority
corridor for which direct loans are authorized under ISTEA
section 1105(I). The corridor is an intermodal project
connecting the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to downtown
Los Angeles. The project replaces the current 20 miles of at-
grade rail lines with a high-speed, below-grade corridor,
thereby eliminating over 200 grade crossings. It also widens
and improves the adjacent major highway on this alignment and
mitigates the impact of increased international traffic
transferring through the San Pedro ports. Segments of the
Alameda transportation corridor are currently under
construction. The appropriated level requested would be used as
backing for a $400,000,000 direct Federal loan. The requested
backing is intended to permit construction to continue without
interruption through the date of an anticipated revenue bond
sale.
The House bill contains funding for the Alameda Corridor
Loan Program under the Federal Railroad Administration's
section 505, Redeemable Preference Shares Program.
State Infrastructure Banks
(highway trust fund)
Appropriations, 1996....................................................
Budget estimate, 1997................................... $250,000,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation
250,000,000
State infrastructure banks are a promising way of
facilitating needed infrastructure investment, especially when
all levels of government are facing constrained resources.
State infrastructure banks are a means of increasing and
improving both public and private investment in transportation.
The National Highway System Designation Act of 1995
authorized up to 10 pilot States to test State infrastructure
banks [SIB's] which would provide greater flexibility to
support the financing of projects by using Federal-aid funds
for revolving loans and other forms of nontraditional financial
assistance for both public and private entities developing
eligible transportation projects. States have shown significant
interest in exploring the infrastructure financing benefits
offered by this concept.
The Committee has provided $250,000,000, as requested, for
the State Infrastructure Bank Program. In addition, the bill
language would allow the Secretary to distribute State
infrastructure bank funds to more than 10 States. To date, the
administration has approved 10 States for participation in this
financing initiative. Those States are California, Missouri,
Arizona, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Florida, South
Carolina, and Virginia. The Committee understands that there
are a number of well-qualified applications submitted by States
that would likely be approved for participation in the program
in fiscal year 1997 if the existing cap of a 10-State
demonstration were lifted. The Committee believes it is
important to provide this equity capital and to allow
additional States to participate, so that vital construction
projects may more quickly move off the drawing boards and into
development.
The Committee especially notes the approval on June 21,
1996, of the Department of Transportation for the State of
California to use the State Infrastructure Bank Program as a
means of financing transportation projects that would otherwise
be delayed or not possible. The Committee believes that the
Alameda corridor project is an excellent candidate for SIB's
type financing, and directs that, out of the funds provided,
$58,680,000 be available, which will be matched by the State of
California to provide for a loan not to exceed $400,000,000, to
be used exclusively for the Alameda corridor project.
NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
Summary of Fiscal Year 1997 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 costs
resulting from traffic crashes on the Nation's highways. The
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides for the
establishment and enforcement of Federal safety standards for
motor vehicles and associated equipment and research, including
the operation of required testing facilities and the National
Driver Register. The Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings
Act initially provided for the establishment of low-speed
collision bumper standards, consumer information activities,
diagnostic inspection, and odometer regulations and was later
amended to incorporate responsibility for the administration of
Federal automotive fuel economy standards.
The Highway Safety Act provides for a coordinated highway
safety grant program to be carried out by the States, together
with supporting research, development, and demonstration
programs. Under section 403 of title 23, United States Code,
technical assistance is provided to the States in the conduct
of their highway safety programs, and research and
demonstration projects are conducted to develop and show the
effectiveness of new techniques and countermeasures to address
highway safety problems including the Safe Communities Injury
Control Program initiated in 1996.
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 safety belt use laws into effect.
The Committee recommends a total program level of
$302,295,000 for the activities and programs of the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration for fiscal year 1997.
This is $49,818,000 less than the budget request and $2,923,000
more than the House allowance.
The following table summarizes the Committee
recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Program 1996 enacted Fiscal year House Committee
\1\ 1997 estimate allowance recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations and research......................... $125,201,000 $158,513,000 $132,272,000 $133,195,000
Highway traffic safety grants \2\............... 155,100,000 \3\ 193,600,00
0 \3\ 167,100,00
0 169,100,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... 280,301,000 352,113,000 299,372,000 302,295,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reductions to comply with working capital fund, awards, and administrative provisions and the
Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.
\2\ Limitation on obligations.
\3\ Includes highway-related safety grants program previously funded in FHWA.
Operations and Research
(Including Highway Trust Fund)
Appropriations, 1996 \1\................................ $125,201,000
Budget estimate, 1997................................... 158,513,000
House allowance......................................... 132,272,000
Committee recommendation................................ 133,195,000
\1\ Excludes reductions of $2,840,000 to comply with working capital
fund, awards, and administrative provisions, and $206,000 to comply with
the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.
The bill includes an appropriation of $133,195,000 for
operations and research, which is $25,318,000 less than the
budget request and $923,000 more than the House allowance.
This level of funding provides for 664 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:
[Dollar amounts in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
1996 Fiscal year House Committee
Program appropriation 1997 budget allowance recommendation
level estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety performance.............................. $12,255 $14,364 $12,864 $11,264
(Positions)................................. (95) (95) (95) (95)
Safety assurance................................ $18,197 $20,244 $19,518 $19,444
(Positions)................................. (103) (103) (103) (103)
Highway safety.................................. $44,417 $49,153 $43,993 $45,641
(Positions)................................. (203) (203) (203) (203)
Research and analysis........................... $44,437 $67,964 $49,699 $51,133
(Positions)................................. (132) (132) (132) (132)
Office of the Administrator..................... $3,820 $3,816 $3,876 $3,816
(Positions)................................. (41) (41) (41) (41)
General administration.......................... $8,838 $9,130 $8,830 $8,805
(Positions)................................. (90) (90) (90) (90)
Grant administration reimbursement.............. -$6,158 -$6,158 -$6,158 -$6,358
Accountwide adjustments......................... -$605 .............. -$350 -$550
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... $125,201 $158,513 $132,272 $133,195
(Positions)............................... (664) (664) (664) (664)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reductions of $2,840,000 to comply with working capital fund, awards, and administrative
provisions, and $206,000 to comply with the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.
Adjustments have been made to the administration's
requested level in the following accounts:
Safety performance standards:
New car assessment program.......................... -$1,600,000
Fuel economy program................................ -1,500,000
Safety assurance: Auto safety hotline................... -800,000
Highway safety:
Safe communities injury control..................... -900,000
Alcohol, drugs, and State programs.................. -545,000
Older driver research............................... +156,000
Driver fatigue...................................... +2,000,000
State and communities program evaluation............ -1,000,000
State motor vehicle services (evaluation/technical
assistance)....................................... -423,000
Rail-highway demonstration program.................. -3,000,000
Research and analysis:
Crash avoidance efforts............................. -2,000,000
National advanced driving simulator (funded under
FHWA ITS)......................................... -10,500,000
Fatal accident reporting system..................... -216,000
Data analysis program............................... -465,000
State data systems.................................. -1,150,000
Partnership for a new generation of vehicles........ -2,500,000
General administration: Strategic planning.............. -325,000
Accountwide adjustments:
Training............................................ -50,000
Computer support.................................... -500,000
safety performance standards
New Car Assessment Program.--The Committee recommends
$1,942,000 for the NCAP, with respect to frontal crashes,
$1,600,000 less than the administration request. Funds have not
been provided to expand the NCAP to include either side impact
crashes or offset crashes. The side impact standard for
passenger cars is effective for the 1997 model year; however,
the standard for light trucks (which includes minivans,
recreational vehicles, pickups, et cetera) will not be
effective until 1999. The Committee believes that side impact
NCAP testing should not begin prior to complete implementation
of this standard. Moreover, no U.S. standard has been
established regarding offset testing. The Committee supports
the international harmonization of vehicle safety standards and
believes that offset NCAP testing would be premature at this
time.
Fuel economy.--The Committee recommends $60,000, which is
$1,500,000 less than the amount requested. The Committee
provides no funds for the proposed environmental impact
statement [EIS] for the fuel economy program. Currently, NHTSA
does not anticipate any substantial changes in the fuel economy
standards and thus a costly EIS on this program is unnecessary.
Funds provided will be used to maintain the plants and lines
data base regarding fuel economy.
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 included this provision because the need for such
labels has not been adequately justified and the additional
costs associated with this proposal would likely be
prohibitive.
Safety warning devices.--The Committee is aware that NHTSA
has filed a notice of proposed rulemaking, No. 96-56, which
would eliminate the performance standards for triangular
warning devices for disabled buses and trucks which exceed
10,000 pounds in weight. The Committee urges NHTSA to proceed
in this matter with care to avoid any adverse impact on highway
safety.
safety assurance
Vehicle safety compliance.--The Committee recommendation
has provided $6,033,000, the amount requested in the budget.
This appropriation includes $186,000 to test compressed natural
gas tanks for compliance with NHTSA's new standards. This
testing is important because of the increasing number of
vehicles--including many public transit buses--powered by
compressed natural gas. The funds provided will also support
the uniform tire quality grading facility.
Auto safety hotline.--The Committee recommends $986,680 to
continue present operations of the auto safety hotline. This
amount includes the base fiscal year 1996 effort and $330,000
to provide telephonic services. The Committee has not approved
the additional $800,000 requested and believes that such funds
would not result in more investigations of serious defects.
Moreover, the Committee urges NHTSA to maximize the use of the
internet both to improve access to safety reports and brochures
and to receive information on possible vehicle defects.
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 include the requested
increase of $40,000 above the current program level and will
enhance NHTSA's efforts to investigate such illegal activities.
Vehicle domestic content labeling.--The Committee has
included $500,000, the amount requested in the budget, for
NHTSA to audit the accuracy of domestic content calculations
made by manufacturers of passenger cars and light trucks. The
America Automobile Labeling Act requires each manufacturer of
more than 1,000 vehicles annually to calculate the United
States-Canadian parts content and display it and other related
information on its vehicles. The act also requires the
Secretary of Transportation to establish a procedure to verify
this label information. Audits of four selected car lines of
two manufacturers (one foreign and one domestic) will be
conducted to assess this data and to assist the Commerce
Department and the United States Trade Representative in
monitoring the goal of the United States-Japan trade agreement
to increase domestic content of Japanese automobiles and light
trucks sold in the United States.
Although the Committee has funded the budget request for
this audit, the Committee remains concerned about the manner in
which domestic content is computed including whether United
States assembly work is counted, whether parts furnished by
United States parts suppliers are considered domestic content,
as well as the treatment of Canadian parts as domestic. These
are issues that will affect the accuracy of an audit, and the
Committee believes that NHSTA should be aware of them.
highway safety programs
Safe communities: injury control.--The Committee recommends
$900,000 to fund two additional demonstrations of the Safe
Communities Injury Control Program. This program requires
additional test sites to evaluate more comprehensively the
effectiveness of this approach to improving highway safety,
including pedestrian and bicycle safety. Because NHTSA received
a large number of promising applications to its initial
solicitation, the Committee supports the expansion of this
project. The additional funds provided will allow the testing
of this concept in various geographical locations with the
participation of different safety, business, medical, and
allied health groups.
Alcohol, drugs, and State programs.--The Committee has
provided $9,882,000, the same amount appropriated for fiscal
year 1996, but $545,000 less than the administration's request.
Current funding represents an increase of 14 percent over
fiscal year 1995 levels. During the last few years, NHTSA has
targeted a substantial portion of its section 403 alcohol
countermeasure program to address the challenges posed by
youth. The Committee encourages NHTSA to maintain a focused
youth-oriented initiative under its section 403 program and
recommends continuation of the current funding level of
$1,772,000 for youth-oriented alcohol public education and
enforcement activities.
National Occupant Protection Program.--The Committee has
provided $6,958,000, the amount requested, in order to enhance
NHTSA's effort to meet the national goal of 75 percent belt use
rate throughout the United States.
Older driver research.--The Committee recommends a total of
$600,000 to accelerate research beneficial to older drivers.
The population of older drivers is steadily increasing and
efforts to improve the driving performance of older drivers
deserve sustained support. NHTSA's research program is
developing information that will assist older drivers, their
families, and State officials in making appropriate driving,
licensing, and mobility decisions. In order to assist this
important effort, the Committee is recommending an increase of
$156,000 above the amount requested. The Committee further
believes that NHTSA should continue its work on demonstration
activities for technologies and practices to improve driving
performance of older drivers at risk of losing their licenses,
as the Committee recommended last year.
Driver fatigue, sleep disorders, and inattention.--The
Committee has been pleased with the initiatives taken by NHTSA
to begin to address the problems of driver fatigue, sleep
disorders, and inattention. NHTSA data indicate a significant
number of nonfatal and fatal crashes are attributed to drivers
falling asleep behind the wheel and driver inattention. The
Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 in funding for
accelerated NHTSA activity in this important area. Funding
should be utilized to collaborate directly with the National
Center on Sleep Disorders Research to conduct and assess public
information activities about driver fatigue, sleep disorders,
and inattention. The Committee strongly urges that NHTSA
consider the national center an equal partner in this
collaboration. The Committee directs NHTSA to submit a report
to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, prior to
markup of the fiscal year 1998 Transportation appropriations
bill, that specifically describes the collaborative efforts and
funding activities between NHTSA and the National Center on
Sleep Disorders Research.
Speed and unsafe driving.--The Committee recommends
$556,000 for the speed and unsafe driving activity, the same
amount as requested in the administration's budget. The
Committee has deleted a House earmark of $200,000 for a study
regarding the repeal of the national speed limit. This earmark
was not included in the budget request.
State and communities program evaluation.--The Committee
provides no funds for this initiative. If special evaluations
are needed, funds should be derived from the base section 403
program.
State motor vehicle services (evaluations/technical
assistance).--The Committee recommends $1,330,000 for records
and licensing, $423,000 less than the request. The Committee
provides no funds for a new initiative on evaluations under the
section 403 program, but has recommended $200,000 for this
purpose from the administrative takedown under the section 402
program.
Rail-Highway Demonstration Program.--The Committee notes
that Federal support of Operation Lifesaver is included within
``Federal Highway Administration'' and ``Federal Railroad
Administration'' accounts. Starting a new initiative would be
duplicative and would entail unnecessary and costly startup and
administrative costs. No funds have been provided for this
initiative.
Ensuring the intended use of section 403 funds.--The
Committee maintains that section 403 funds are to be used
primarily to support new and innovative traffic safety
programs. NHTSA has indicated that after 1997, several programs
that have been funded using section 403 funds for many years
should be able to continue on their own with the assistance and
continued support of various groups and individuals, primarily
from the private sector. The Committee encourages NHTSA to work
with these organizations to ensure a smooth transition away
from dependence on Federal funding.
Airbag deployment-child passenger safety education
outreach.--The Committee directs the NHTSA to provide $137,000
within the funds provided to conduct education and outreach to
help inform parents of potential dangers of automobile airbag
deployment in connection with infant and child car seats. The
Committee is concerned with the increasing number of fatalities
and injuries to children and the need for greater public
awareness of proper safety measures that should be used in
connection with airbags. The Committee expects this funding to
be used by NHTSA to promote proper safety techniques to the
general public.
research and analysis
Biomechanics.--The Committee recommends $7,450,000, the
amount requested in the budget, and $1,000,000 above the House
allowance. The biomechanics program studies, develops, and
improves NHTSA's understanding of the impact injury process and
provides scientific underpinning for the crashworthiness
research program. In future budget submissions, the Committee
encourages the Department to allocate the costs of the National
Transportation Biomechanics Research Center among the modal
administrations that are expected to benefit from the research
to be managed by the center. The Committee also urges NHTSA to
redouble its efforts to obtain cost-sharing commitments with
other organizations that would benefit from the center.
This appropriation continues funding for hospital-based,
indepth crash injury studies at four trauma centers. Currently
these centers are located at the William Lehman Injury Research
Center at Jackson Memorial Hospital, Miami; the National Study
Center for Trauma and EMS, Baltimore; the University of
Medicine and Dentistry, New Jersey; and the Children's National
Medical Center, Washington, DC. In fiscal year 1997, NHTSA
intends to complement this effort by means of cooperation,
coordination, and computer data linkage with three trauma
centers that receive private funding to conduct similar
research. The Committee has provided $1,000,000 above the House
level to enhance three important NHTSA efforts in the following
areas:
--First, NHTSA plans to develop common data elements and
investigate protocols and a common and shared
computerized data base system, to link all seven
centers together and merge their data into a common
pool for use by all participants and sponsors, thus
avoiding duplication of efforts.
--Second, NHTSA's university-based impact injury research
centers currently located at the Medical College of
Wisconsin, University of Virginia, Ohio State
University, and Hannemen Medical Center will study and
quantify the actual mechanical processes and thresholds
that cause significant injury patterns such as those
caused by airbag inflation (especially those affecting
children), and NHTSA should help ensure that no
duplication of efforts occurs by thoroughly reviewing
the current literature and safety practices and by
promoting close coordination of these research efforts.
--Third, NHTSA should use its improved biomechanical
understanding of various injury processes to enhance
crash test dummy component development efforts.
The Committee directs NHTSA to provide up to $300,000
within the funds provided to conduct research on child safety
seats and automobile airbag deployment. The Committee is
concerned with the alarming number of children who have been
killed or seriously injured by the forceful deployment of
passenger airbags when seated in the front seat or buckled into
infant and child safety seats. Due to the number of fatalities
and injuries, the Committee directs NHTSA to perform research
on airbag safety in connection with infant and child car seats.
Funding should be used to conduct a comprehensive,
interdisciplinary study involving pediatric trauma experts,
engineers, and epidemiologists on means to prevent additional
deaths and injuries.
Crash avoidance efforts.--The Committee has provided
$2,597,000 for crash avoidance research, $12,500,000 less than
the budget request. The Committee concurs with the House report
in providing funds for the national advanced driving simulator
[NADS] through the use of contract authority provided to the
Federal Highway Administration's ITS Joint Program Office. The
Committee notes that, while FHWA's Joint Program Office will be
the cognizant coordinating office for the NADS as it relates to
the entire ITS program, NHTSA retains the primary
responsibility to ensure the success of the program. NHTSA is
expected to continue its role regarding cooperative agreements
and contracts concerning NADS.
NHTSA should continue its efforts to avoid increases in the
cost of completing the NADS. The host site has a responsibility
for operating the facility on a self-sustaining basis as agreed
to in the cooperative agreement with NHTSA. The Committee is
concerned that any reduction in the hourly operational rate of
NADS would jeopardize the ability of the NADS to operate
without a subsidy. The projected hourly rate for NADS is one-
third the rate of the Daimler-Benz facility, a lower fidelity
simulator than NADS from which DOT purchased time in the past.
Any additional reduction in the hourly rate for NADS might
jeopardize the ability of NADS to be self-sustaining. The
original hourly rate allowed for the continuous maintenance and
technology upgrades of the facility over the life of the
project. The Committee recognizes that advances in this
technology will take place at a rapid rate which will require
state-of-the-art improvements. Thus, the hourly rate charged to
the Government should not cause higher costs to other private
users and should be sufficient to allow the facility to both
operate efficiently and take advantage of technology advances.
The hourly rate should be periodically examined with those
factors in mind.
The Committee has provided $2,000,000 to conduct research
addressing rollover crashes (which account for over 25 percent
of all light-duty vehicle fatalities); antilock braking systems
[ABS]; and $597,000 for heavy vehicles/driver performance.
Fatal accident reporting system [FARS].--The Committee
provides $5,035,000 for FARS, which is $216,000 below the
administration's request. The additional $450,000 provided
above the fiscal year 1996 base will promote participation by
all States in this essential data system and allow funds for
the imaging of State source documents including police accident
reports.
Data analysis program.--Due to budgetary constraints, the
Committee recommends $1,635,000 for the data analysis program,
the same level as provided by the House. This is an increase of
$220,000 above the enacted fiscal year 1996 level, but $465,000
below the administration's requested level of $2,100,000.
State data systems.--Due to budgetary constraints, the
Committee recommends $2,700,000 for State data systems, which
is $1,150,000 less than the amount requested.
Partnership for a new generation of vehicles [PNGV].--The
Committee concurs with the House and recommends $2,500,000 for
the partnership for a new generation of vehicles [PNGV], which
is $2,500,000 below the amount requested. The Committee
maintains that the crash simulation effort should be initiated
but believes that the full amount requested is not yet needed
due to delays in the PNGV program. The Committee has not
provided funds for infrastructure analysis and economic
analysis because such efforts would be premature with respect
to the status of the PNGV program.
Budget submission.--The Committee requests that NHTSA's
fiscal year 1998 budget submission for the Research and
Analysis Program contain the same level of detail and quality
of presentation as the fiscal years 1995 and 1996 submissions.
Bicycle safety.--The Committee notes that children ages 5
to 14 are the most common victims of bicycle injuries, with
bicycling the fourth leading cause of death for that age group.
Of the 500,000 bicycling injuries occurring in the United
States each year, the age group 5 to 14 accounts for more than
50 percent. The Committee directs NHTSA to fairly consider a
proposal by Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh and Carnegie
Mellon University that uses the new technology of virtual
reality, computers, and robotics, combined with medical
science, to study bicycle injuries and deaths. This research
venture would test several thousand children of varying age in
a simulator that will identify factors causing bicycle trauma.
From this data, it is hoped that bicycle accidents could be
reduced by designing effective prevention programs.
general administration
Strategic planning.--Due to budget limitations, the
Committee has not included the $325,000 requested for strategic
planning. Internal agency resources can be used for this
purpose.
Economic analysis.--The Committee recommends funding of
$175,000, as requested by the administration. The results of
the economic analysis will provide better guidance on the true
cost of accidents and thereby assist NHTSA in managing its
programs and priorities.
accountwide adjustments
Training.--The Committee has deleted the $50,000 requested
for training related to customer service.
Computer support.--The Committee notes that NHTSA has
requested $3,211,000 for computer support, an 18.4-percent
increase over the fiscal year 1996 level. Funding for computer
support has increased substantially in the last several years.
The Committee recommends maintaining funding at the current
level of $2,711,000.
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. 323). Funding issues regarding
CAFE standards are also addressed in previous portions of this
report.
Exemption to odometer disclosure requirement.--The
Committee has included a general provision (sec. 332) 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, 1996.................................... ($155,100,000)
Budget estimate, 1997................................... (191,000,000)
House allowance......................................... (167,100,000)
Committee recommendation
(169,100,000)
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 national priority
areas established by Congress which have the greatest potential
for achieving safety improvements and reducing traffic crashes,
fatalities, and injuries. 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
administration's request has merged a similar program
previously funded under FHWA with this account.
The Committee recommends an appropriation for liquidation
of contract authorization of $169,100,000 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 retained a 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
The bill includes language limiting the obligations to be
incurred under the various highway traffic safety grants
programs, as requested in the budget. Separate obligation
limitations are included in the bill with the following funding
allocations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year House Committee
1996 enacted 1997 estimate allowance recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 402................................. $127,700,000 <SUP>1 $166,200,000 <SUP>1 $138,700,000 \1\ $141,700,00
0
Section 410................................. 25,000,000 25,000,000 26,000,000 25,000,000
National Driver Register.................... 2,400,000 2,400,000 2,400,000 2,400,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. 155,100,000 193,600,000 167,100,000 169,100,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Merges FHWA's and NHTSA's section 402 formula grant programs.
The Committee has included an obligation limitation of
$141,700,000 in the bill, which is $24,500,000 less than the
budget request. This limitation includes $129,700,000 for
NHTSA's section 402 grant program and $12,000,000 for FHWA's
section 402 grant program. Language is included in the bill
limiting funds available for Federal grants administration to
$5,468,000 for NHTSA and $150,000 for FHWA.
Over the last several years, NHTSA has made substantial
progress in improving the Federal/State relationship in highway
safety. The most significant recent action has been to allow
States to submit a performance-based highway safety plan.
Almost all of the States will soon have in place this
alternative way to apply for and manage section 402 funds,
allowing them to better manage their own highway safety
programs while minimizing Federal interference. The Committee
looks forward to the continued evolution of this initiative.
Evaluation of State and community programs.--NHTSA is
expanding its new performance-based procedures for the section
402 program, which provides more flexibility to State grantees.
Under the new process, States set their own highway safety
performance goals and measurements; NHTSA provides program and
technical assistance to the States. As the new pilot program
expands, participants will benefit from additional technical
assistance as they build the capacity to assess the
effectiveness of their own performance. Consequently, within
the funds provided for the administrative takedown for the
section 402 program, $200,000 is provided to help States
conduct evaluations. The funding to support this initiative
shall be available through each of NHTSA's regional offices to
the States.
No earmarking for section 402.--In fiscal year 1996, NHTSA
designed new performance-based procedures for the section 402
program, and 16 States joined the new section 402 pilot
process. For fiscal year 1997, 40 States, the District of
Columbia, and three territories have elected to use the new
approach. This commendable new management process gives States
more responsibility to determine the best use of limited
highway safety funds. Therefore, the Committee has decided not
to earmark these funds for any specific programs, such as youth
traffic safety or safe communities. The Committee concurs with
the House that the States are best able to determine their
individual needs.
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 zero
tolerance 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, as requested, providing that
$500,000 of the section 410 moneys shall be used for technical
assistance.
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 is transitioning 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 bill includes an obligation limitation of $2,400,000
for the NDR, which is the same as the administration's request.
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION
Summary of Fiscal Year 1997 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 $1,006,671,000 for the activities of the
Federal Railroad Administration for fiscal year 1997. This is
$41,666,000 less than the budget request and $294,017,000 more
than the House allowance.
The following table summarizes the Committee
recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
Program 1996 enacted 1997 budget House allowance Committee
\1\ estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Administrator................ $14,018,000 $16,883,000 $16,469,000 $16,739,000
Railroad safety............................ 49,919,000 51,864,000 51,407,000 51,407,000
Railroad research and development.......... 24,550,000 24,565,000 20,341,000 20,000,000
Northeast Corridor Improvement Program..... 115,000,000 200,000,000 ................ 200,000,000
High-speed rail trainsets and facilities... ............... 80,000,000 80,000,000 80,000,000
Next generation high-speed rail............ \2\ 24,205,000 26,525,000 19,757,000 26,525,000
Rhode Island rail development.............. 1,000,000 10,000,000 4,000,000 10,000,000
Direct Loan Financing Program.............. ............... ............... 58,680,000 ...............
Direct loan limitation..................... ............... ............... (400,000,000) ...............
Grants to National Railroad Passenger
Corporation \3\........................... 635,000,000 638,500,000 462,000,000 592,000,000
Alaska railroad rehabilitation............. 10,000,000 ............... ................ 10,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................. 873,692,000 1,048,337,000 712,654,000 1,006,671,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reductions to comply with working capital fund, awards, and administrative provisions and the
Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.
\2\ Includes limitation on obligations of $5,000,000.
\3\ Includes mandatory passenger rail service payments.
Office of the Administrator
Appropriations, 1996 \1\................................ $14,018,000
Budget estimate, 1997................................... 16,883,000
House allowance......................................... 16,469,000
Committee recommendation................................ 16,739,000
\1\ Excludes reductions of $354,000 to comply with working capital fund,
awards, and administrative provisions.
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
$16,739,000. The amount provided is $144,000 less than the
administration's request and $270,000 more than the House
allowance.
committee recommendation
Civil rights.--The Committee concurs with the House's
reduction of $144,000, which the administration has requested
to add back funding for civil rights activities.
Ravenna, OH, connection.--The Committee does not concur on
the need to study an Amtrak connection from Ravenna to
Youngstown, OH.
Office of Chief Counsel.--The Committee directs that none
of the personnel reductions planned for fiscal year 1997 shall
be obtained from the Safety Division of the Office of Chief
Counsel in order to ensure that sufficient staff support is
provided for this important area.
Railroad Safety
Appropriations, 1996 \1\................................ $49,919,000
Budget estimate, 1997................................... 51,864,000
House allowance......................................... 51,407,000
Committee recommendation................................ 51,407,000
\1\ Excludes reduction of $291,000 to comply with working capital fund,
awards, and administrative provisions, and $70,000 to comply with the
Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.
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 $51,407,000 program level for
the Railroad Safety Program. This is the same as the House
allowance.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends the following adjustments to the
budget request:
Ten percent increase for communications, utilities, and
miscellaneous....................................... -$107,000
Reduce costs associated with new rail safety advisory
committee........................................... -150,000
Hold printing and reproduction costs to 10 percent
increase............................................ -15,000
Hold other services to 5 percent increase............... -185,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Net adjustment.................................... -457,000
Communications, utilities, and miscellaneous.--The
Committee supports the House recommendation of $798,000 for
communications, utilities, and miscellaneous expenses, an
increase of 10 percent above the enacted level. FRA has
requested pagers for its inspectors and toll-free numbers for
many of its field offices. The Committee believes that such
costs can be deferred and should be reexamined.
Rail Safety Advisory Committee.--FRA has requested $200,000
to establish a Rail Safety Advisory Committee [RSAC] to
facilitate progress on its substantial regulatory backlog. The
new RSAC is comprised of 48 individuals from 27 member
organizations. Hopefully, the RSAC's large size will not
diminish its effectiveness in helping FRA reduce its safety
regulatory backlog. The Committee notes, however, that the FRA
administrator has the final responsibility to move the agency's
safety agenda forward and to lead the process. To adequately
support this initiative, the Committee provides $50,000 which
is consistent with funding levels provided to other DOT
advisory committees. If additional funding proves to be
essential, the FRA administrator may reduce other
administrative expenses, other than training for Federal and
State safety inspectors, to provide such funds.
Rail safety studies.--The Committee continues to be
concerned with the FRA's efforts in the area of rail safety,
especially in the wake of the recent fatal accidents in
Secaucus, NJ, and Silver Spring, MD. The Committee is aware of
ongoing efforts within the FRA to improve rail safety. However,
the Committee believes that a more aggressive approach may be
warranted. As such, the Committee directs the Administrator to
conduct the following studies and issue reports on the status
of these efforts to the Committee by June 1, 1997. The
Administrator should include in the reports recommendations as
to whether the programs should be implemented for the purpose
of public safety, and, if the recommendation is affirmative,
whether the FRA will be issuing regulations to implement the
programs.
The four following studies shall be conducted:
One, study the technical, structural, and economic
feasibility of automatic train escape devices and their
benefits to public safety.
Two, study whether the development of minimum safety
standards for fuel tanks of locomotives of rail passenger
trains is warranted, taking into account environmental and
public safety. The standards may apply to new locomotives, if
appropriate.
Three, study the feasibility of establishing minimum
crashworthiness standards for passenger cab cars, including
requiring crash posts at the corners of rail passenger cars and
safety locomotives on rail passenger trains.
Four, study the placement of rail signals along railways,
including whether FRA should require that a signal be placed
along a railway at each exist of a rail station, and that a
signal be placed so that it is visible only to the train
employee of a train that the signal is designed to influence.
Printing and reproduction.--The Committee supports the
House recommendation and provides $102,000 for printing and
reproduction, a 10-percent increase over the fiscal year 1996
level.
Other services.--The Committee supports the House
limitation of a 5-percent increase above fiscal year 1996 and
provides $4,638,000.
Safety assurance and compliance program.--Last year, FRA
was directed to report to the Committee on how an appropriate
balance is being achieved between the resources used to promote
cooperation and educational assistance and those used for
enforcement. The report was to detail improvements, or lack
thereof, in compliance for each of the railroads for which FRA
approved a safety action plan. The Committee urges the FRA to
complete this important report since it is now overdue.
Improvement needed in the completeness of budget
submission.--The Committee found the Office of Safety budget
submission lacking in details. In addition to justifying new
initiatives, future budget requests for this office should
specify and explain expenses and activities in the base program
including: funds for drug testing, information services,
permanent change of station, training, RSAC, et cetera.
Railroad Research and Development
Appropriations, 1996.................................... $24,550,000
Budget estimate, 1997................................... 24,565,000
House allowance......................................... 20,341,000
Committee recommendation
20,000,000
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 $20,000,000
for railroad research and development. The amount provided is
$4,565,000 less than the President's request and $341,000 less
than the House allowance.
Amtrak privatization study.--For purposes of identifying
private options that will result in a world class national rail
passenger system in the United States, the Committee encourages
the FRA to conduct a study on privatization of intercity rail
passenger service. Such a study may investigate the
alternatives of: (a) a passenger system operating under the
franchise of a public or private national coordinating
authority with service provided by one or more private
operators; (b) an option of privatization of Amtrak with a
significant, sustainable, and stable source of capital funding;
or (c) Federal withdrawal from all intercity passenger
responsibility.
The study could include the recommendations of the
Discovery Institute Inquiry on Passenger Rail Privatization of
October 1995, the British passenger rail privatization
methodology, the Amtrak proposal for privatization with access
to a trust fund, and any other plans deemed reasonable by those
conducting the study. The study shall seek analysis and opinion
from the Federal Railroad Administrator, Amtrak, the General
Accounting Office, freight railroads, rail labor, and States
currently planning intercity rail passenger service. At a
minimum, views shall be sought from the States with a wide
representation of urban and rural needs. A report should be
submitted to the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations
by August 1, 1997.
Mitigation study.--The Committee has been informed of local
community concerns in Auburn, WA, regarding the reopening of
Stampede Pass rail line operated by Burlington Northern-Santa
Fe Railroad. For that reason, $100,000 is provided for the FRA
to work with officials from the city of Auburn in conducting a
study to mitigate the impacts of this line. The Committee also
notes that local matching funds will be provided to complete
this study.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends the following changes to the
administration's budget submission:
New program initiatives................................. -$2,725,000
Delete funding for maglev initiative.................... -1,000,000
Reduce costs of environmental program................... -200,000
Decrease funding due to unobligated balances............ -640,000
New program initiatives.--The Committee agrees with the
House reduction in new program initiatives and has deleted
$2,725,000, as did the House. The Committee directs that FRA
continue the ongoing Oregon positive train separation project
referenced in House Report 104-286 from within available
account balances.
Maglev technologies.--Due to budget constraints, the
Committee has deleted $1,000,000 requested to work in concert
with the Air Force, Navy, and NASA, who are working on military
and space launch applications of maglev technology. This
reduction is made without prejudice to future funding requests
for projects to ensure the safety of maglev systems.
The Committee recognizes that pursuant to section 359(d) of
the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995, the
Secretary is conducting a study evaluating the near-term
applications of magnetic levitation ground transportation
technology in the United States. Given the potential
environmental benefits and job creation associated with maglev
technology, the Committee commends the Department for its
continuing efforts to establish maglev transportation as an
alternative mode of passenger and small freight transportation.
Although current fiscal constraints preclude a substantial
Federal role in developing maglev technology, the Committee
believes that FRA should continue to evaluate which maglev
projects may warrant immediate application, especially those
already certified elsewhere for commercial passenger service.
Environmental program.--The Committee has reduced the
environmental program by $200,000 in view of the substantial
amount of funds already spent on understanding health and
safety issues regarding electromagnetic fields.
Grade crossing safety.--The Committee recommends $300,000
to support Operation Lifesaver activities, the amount requested
in the budget. A portion of these funds will be used to
identify selected examples of effective practices or strategies
used to promote grade crossing safety and to make this
information readily available.
Operating practices.--The Committee seeks to ensure that
the operating practices program continues a strong focus on
fatigue, stress, and other human dynamic questions not
adequately addressed by private sector research, and has
provided $2,595,000, the amount requested in the budget, for
research on operating practices. Approximately one-third of all
train accidents are due to human factors, including inadequate
training, conflicting rules, fatigue, and irregular work hours.
The Committee urges FRA to continue its efforts regarding
stress and fatigue research, focusing on workplace factors
involving scheduling, duration, and notification of work
assignments and associated mitigation strategies aimed at
reducing stress and fatigue experienced by locomotive engineers
and dispatchers. Also within the funds provided for operating
practices, the Committee recommends $100,000 for the ergonomics
of advanced train control. This is the same amount allocated
during fiscal year 1996.
Passenger car standards.--The Committee urges FRA to
complete necessary research to support the development of
passenger car standards, and has provided $800,000 for this
research, the amount requested in the budget.
Strategic plan and improved budget submission.--The
Committee concurs with the House request for a 5-year strategic
plan of FRA's research and development program. In addition,
this report should include the next generation program.
Budget submission.--In order to ensure the continuity of
the FRA research and development and the high-speed rail safety
programs, the Committee requests that future budget submissions
present funding levels for the past 2 years as well as the
proposed levels of funding for each of the major projects for
which support is requested.
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, 1996.................................... $115,000,000
Budget estimate, 1997................................... 200,000,000
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation
200,000,000
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.
Since 1976, some $3,600,000,000 has been invested by the
Federal Government in the railroad. Amtrak is responsible for
implementing the goals of NECIP, defined as regularly scheduled
service between New York and Washington in 2 hours 30 minutes
and between New York and Boston in 3 hours. Over 200,000,000
intercity and commuter rail passengers travel on some portions
of the Northeast corridor rail line each year.
Since 1991, funding for the project has focused on two
areas: reduction in trip time between New York and Boston; and
state-of-good-repair recapitalization of the railroad between
New York and Washington. The New York-Boston project is
scheduled to be completed by October 1999, following
construction of the new electrification system between New
Haven and Boston and the delivery of the first of 18 new high-
speed trainsets. Many of the infrastructure improvements,
necessary to permit up to 150-miles-per-hour speeds and
facilitate increased growth on the rail line, have been
designed and installed. Electrification construction work began
on July 1, 1996. Other essential projects, including work to
reduce rail congestion that benefits both Amtrak and commuter
operations, also have progressed from design to construction.
In March 1996, Amtrak announced the award of a contract for
18 high-speed trainsets, 3 maintenance facilities, and 15 high-
speed locomotives. The trainsets will include in excess of 70
percent American content. Importantly, Amtrak has been
successful in securing financing for over 80 percent of the
procurement--up to $860,000,000 in total financing--and will
not be required to repay the debt until delivery of the
trainsets for revenue service. The private financing will cover
the cost of the trainsets and locomotives; however, because of
the difficulty inherent in financing fixed-yard facilities,
Amtrak must rely primarily on previously appropriated funds,
together with $80,000,000 provided under the ``High-speed rail
trainsets and facilities'' account, for the $250,000,000 cost
of three maintenance facilities and other program activities.
Amtrak projects that the operation of high-speed rail
service on the Northeast corridor, made possible through the
NECIP improvements, will enable it to generate net incremental
revenues (after expenses and debt service) in excess of
$150,000,000 per year, once the full fleet of trainsets is in
operation. This revenue projection was the product of 2 years
of extensive work by Amtrak and a team of industry experts.
This incremental revenue will provide much of the funding that
will enable Amtrak to eliminate its need for Federal operating
support early next century.
South of New York, Amtrak continues to seek funding to
recapitalize the rail line and to preserve its ability to
facilitate 125-miles-per-hour and faster operations. Amtrak is
also working with the commuter authorities who operate the
majority of the trains on the rail line to develop long-term
recapitalization and upgrade programs. In a May 1996 joint
report to Congress on the condition of the New York-Washington
portion of the Northeast corridor, Amtrak and the FRA reported
that some $1,970,000,000 is needed over time to replace
critical facilities, improve the safety of the nearly 100-year-
old New York tunnels, and to increase the capacity of the rail
line. This study reported that Amtrak carries between 12 and 13
percent of all intercity trips in the New York City to
Washington, DC, corridor, including those by private
automobile. In 1995, Amtrak carried over 40 percent of the
combined air and rail common carrier market between these two
points, and over 65 percent of the total combined air and rail
market when intermediate points (such as Philadelphia to New
York City) are included. Amtrak and the FRA are undertaking a
more indepth study of the work that will be required in the
south end of the Northeast corridor.
The Committee recognizes the importance of maintaining and
upgrading the condition of this portion of the rail line. The
New York-Washington segment of the corridor generates the most
riders and the most revenues for Amtrak, and includes portions
of five public commuter rail systems, including New Jersey
Transit, MARC, SEPTA, LIRR, and URE. The joint Amtrak-FRA
study, requested last year, is required to define a long-term
program of improvements to preserve the corridor and ensure its
ability to accommodate increased intercity and commuter
service. In the absence of such a program, it is difficult for
the Committee to prioritize the scarce funding available for
investment. The Committee urges Amtrak and the FRA to progress
phase II of the study as quickly as possible.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee has provided $200,000,000 for the Northeast
Corridor Improvement Program. The amount provided is the same
as the administration's request and $14,000,000 less than
Amtrak's request. The House deleted all funds for NECIP.
The Committee has allocated the NECIP funds as requested in
the budget: $75,000,000 to progress the high-speed rail
improvements north of New York; and $125,000,000 for
recapitalization south of New York. The Committee has also
included $80,000,000 as the final Federal contribution to the
high-speed trainset program under a separate header.
For the first time since the inception of the NECIP program
in 1976, the House included no funding for investment in the
Northeast corridor infrastructure. The House justified this on
the availability of so-called balances within the ``NECIP''
account that had not yet been expended by Amtrak. The Committee
contends that these balances are illusory. Amtrak's contractual
obligations--money it is required to pay to contractors for
work that is already underway--exceed the balance of unexpended
funds and must remain available to meet Amtrak's payment
obligations under the contracts. Moreover, because Amtrak
itself undertakes much of the infrastructure work on its own
railroad, funds that may be categorized as unexpended or
unobligated, in fact, have been committed by Amtrak in the same
way as if Amtrak had hired an outside contractor to undertake
the work. Significant additional funding is required in fiscal
year 1997 to progress work essential to meet the project goals
in 1999.
In the absence of additional funding during fiscal year
1997, Amtrak will have to suspend all work on the New York-
Boston project except electrification and federally required
mitigation. Three-hour service will not be achievable in time
to generate the incremental revenues that Amtrak requires to
offset the elimination of Federal operating support called for
in the pending authorization bill. Finally, work to preserve
current speeds and enhance safety on the south end of the
railroad would stop, further undermining Amtrak's ability to
earn revenue from its high-speed operations.
The Committee believes that Amtrak cannot become self-
sufficient without capital investment in the project it is most
dependent upon to generate new and significant revenues.
Investment in the Northeast corridor is clearly vital to the
future of Amtrak. The Committee has included sufficient funding
to permit the timely completion of the New York-Boston program
and to progress state of good repairs south of New York.
High-Speed Rail Trainsets and Facilities
Appropriations, 1996....................................................
Budget estimate, 1997................................... $80,000,000
House allowance......................................... 80,000,000
Committee recommendation
80,000,000
This appropriation will help Amtrak finance the acquisition
of trainsets and related maintenance facilities specially
designed to offer enhanced high-speed (150 miles per hour)
service on the Northeast corridor from Washington, DC, to
Boston, MA. The Committee's recommended level is the same as
the budget request and House allowance, and $20,000,000 below
Amtrak's request. The Committee concurs with the House that
this is a one-time grant which, when combined with previously
appropriated funds and private vendor financing, will ensure
that Amtrak has sufficient funds to progress the needed
facility improvements and acquire trainsets for high-speed rail
service on the Northeast corridor.
Key to Amtrak's efforts to wean itself from Federal
operating assistance by fiscal year 2002 is the introduction of
modern, electrified high-speed service in the Boston-New York
City-Washington, DC, corridor, beginning in 1999. Independent
analysis of the potential high-speed market projects that by
2001, this service, using the new high-speed trainsets, will
attract over 2 million additional passengers. With the increase
in ridership and through yield management, the high-speed
service will permit Northeast corridor operations to break even
and generate increasing amounts of cash that can offset
operating shortfalls in other areas. Without high-speed
service, these projects show that the Northeast corridor will
never reach a point where a Federal operating subsidy is not
needed.
The high-speed equipment will serve two purposes. First, it
will replace 15-year-old locomotives presently in use, which
pull 20-year-old Amfleet cars in Metroliner service. The aging
equipment is not capable of achieving the NECIP trip time
goals, is experiencing progressively more frequent failures,
and does not possess the amenities necessary for Amtrak to
attract and retain new riders. Second, the new high-speed
equipment will permit Metroliners to directly operate between
Washington and Boston, eliminating the need to change trains in
New York City and freeing up capacity in congested Pennsylvania
Station. The equipment is essential for achievement of the
statutory time trip goal for the New York City-to-Boston
service of under 3 hours.
General provision.--Under the 1976 act establishing the
Northeast corridor project, the Secretary of Transportation was
required to implement the project (Public Law 94-210, sec.
703). However, as directed by Congress in Public Law 96-954,
section 206, the Secretary transferred all authority and
responsibility for implementing the project to Amtrak in 1985.
The Committee has included a general provision which confirms
that the authority transferred to Amtrak to implement NECIP is
the same authority that the Secretary had as implementor of the
project, including the exemptions from State and local laws
which a project undertaken by the United States enjoys. This
will help avoid the possibility of time-consuming disputes with
respect to State and local requirements applicable to
construction, and will help facilitate the investment of
private sector funds in the project, particularly for secured
financing of high-speed train maintenance facilities. These
facilities would cost the Federal Government at least
$130,000,000 if not privately financed. Under the Committee
provision, secured private sector financing is more likely,
because the language permits a private sector corporation to
reclaim the train maintenance facilities in the event of an
Amtrak bankruptcy.
Next Generation High-Speed Rail
(including trust funds)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Trust \1\ Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1996...................................... $19,205,000 $5,000,000 $24,205,000
Budget estimate, 1997..................................... 26,525,000 ................ 26,525,000
House allowance........................................... 19,757,000 ................ 19,757,000
Committee recommendation.................................. 26,525,000 ................ 26,525,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Limitation on obligations.
The Committee has provided $26,525,000 in general fund
appropriations for the high-speed ground transportation [HSGT]
program. This amount, in combination with carryover of
$1,420,882 from the trust fund, yields a total Committee
recommendation of $27,945,882 for fiscal year 1997. The amount
provided is $8,188,882 more than the House allowance and the
same as 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.
From within the funds provided, the Committee recommends
the following allocations:
Northwest high-speed rail projects.--The sum of $11,100,000
is provided for the State of Oregon for track, signals, grade
crossing improvements, and station improvements (Albany,
Eugene, Oregon City, and Salem) within the Portland to Eugene
segment of the Pacific Northwest high-speed rail corridor. This
will complement the significant State and local investment
being made in this FRA-designated high-speed rail corridor to
achieve 2-hour service between Portland and Eugene. No matching
funds shall be required for this project. These funds will
assist efforts to enhance developing high-speed rail corridors.
Turbo-train upgrades, State of New York.--The sum of
$6,000,000 is provided to continue FRA's ongoing project with
the State of New York. Moreover, the Committee disagrees with
language in the House report stating that FRA should not fund
the retrofit of older railcars or locomotives. The Committee
supports FRA's position that the use of retired turbine
locomotives [RTL's] as test platforms makes sound economic
sense. In the RTL II demonstration in 1995, the RTL trainsets
demonstrate their capability as low-cost platforms for testing
components of advanced electric locomotive designs at speeds of
at least 125 miles per hour in real world testing, including
revenue service. The RTL II involved testing an advanced gas
turbine design as a prime mover. Future testing on RTL test
platforms could include further advancements in gas turbine
designs, improved transmissions, and other enhancements that
would improve performance and ride quality. In addition, at the
conclusion of the initial testing phase, the RTL test platform
can enter regular revenue service for extended periods of
revenue tests, with the added benefit of reducing the demands
on Amtrak's limited capital resources to acquire equipment,
helping maintain the schedules on the Empire corridor into New
York City.
If the option of using retired turbine locomotive trainsets
is not available to FRA, entirely new test platforms would have
to be developed. This could increase the cost of tests or
reduce the amount of funding available for testing advancements
in nonelectric technology. In addition, there would be no
follow-on benefit after the test in the form of operational
equipment that could be used in revenue service.
Alaska Railroad Rehabilitation
Appropriations, 1996.................................... $10,000,000
Budget estimate, 1997...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation
10,000,000
The Committee has included $10,000,000 for rail safety
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.
Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Project
Appropriations, 1996....................................................
Budget estimate, 1997..................................\1\ ($15,000,000)
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................
\1\ Funding for this project is included in the ``Grants to the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation'' appropriation budget request, capital
expenses.
The Committee has included a discussion of the Pennsylvania
Station redevelopment project's funding request and the
Committee's subsequent action under the ``Grants to the
National Railroad Passenger Corporation capital expenses''
account header.
Rhode Island Rail Development
Appropriations, 1996.................................... $1,000,000
Budget estimate, 1997................................... 10,000,000
House allowance......................................... 4,000,000
Committee recommendation
10,000,000
For fiscal year 1996, Congress appropriated $1,000,000 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 $6,000,000 for damages stemming from certain potential legal
actions brought by the P&W.
For fiscal year 1997, 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
$16,000,000 for damages stemming from certain potential legal
actions brought by the P&W. The Committee is providing
$10,000,000 to continue the Rhode Island rail development
project.
Direct Loan Financing Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidy Limitation on
appropriation direct loans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1996.............. ................. .................
Budget estimate, 1997............. ................. .................
House allowance................... $58,680,000 ($400,000,000)
Committee recommendation.......... ................. .................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The administration has not requested any funds under
section 505 of the Rail Revitalization and Regulatory Reform
Act of 1976. However, the House included $58,680,000 in
appropriations to subsidize loans of $400,000,000 for the
Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority. This large, ongoing
project involves the elimination of over 200 at-grade-highway
crossings along a 20-mile rail corridor in order to improve
access to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The
administration had requested funds for the Alameda corridor
project under the Federal Highway Administration program. The
Committee has directed, elsewhere in the report, that
$58,680,000 provided under the State infrastructure banks
program be made available for the Alameda corridor project.
Grants to National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
Appropriations, 1996....................................\1\ $635,000,000
Budget estimate, 1997................................... \1\ 638,500,000
House allowance......................................... 462,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 592,000,000
\1\ Includes $120,000,000 for mandatory passenger rail payments in
fiscal year 1996 and $142,000 in fiscal year 1997.
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 25-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
$592,000,000 for Amtrak. This is $130,000,000 more than the
House appropriation, $46,500,000 below the administration's
request, and $43,000,000 below the fiscal year 1996 Amtrak
appropriation. The Committee understands that Amtrak management
is concerned that it may not be able to achieve operating self-
sufficiency by fiscal year 2002, unless additional capital
funds are provided. Therefore, the Senate has provided Amtrak
with a total of $330,000,000 more in its capital accounts than
that provided by the House. The Committee allocation includes
$200,000,000 for NECIP, an account zeroed by the House, and
$250,000,000 for capital, which is $130,000,000 above the House
appropriation. In addition, $80,000,000 has been provided to
advance the high-speed trainsets and facilities project, which
Amtrak estimates will significantly increase revenues to the
Corporation.
OPERATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year House Committee
1997 request allowance recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Routine operating expenses...................................... $200,000,000 $200,000,000 $200,000,000
Mandatory passenger rail payments............................... 142,000,000 142,000,000 142,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee has provided $200,000,000 for operations, the
same as both the House allowance and the budget request and
$63,000,000 below the enacted level. Amtrak has requested
$250,000,000 for operations.
Mandatory passenger rail payments.--This appropriation
includes $142,000,000 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.
Transition and restructuring costs.--Neither the
administration nor Amtrak requested any funds for long-term
transition expenses in fiscal year 1997, and the Committee has
not provided any funding for such costs. In fiscal year 1996,
the Committee provided $100,000,000 under this program which
was used to cover operating expenses for Amtrak.
General provision.--At Amtrak's request, the Committee has
included a general provision which pertains to possible claims
against Amtrak regarding unused tickets.
CAPITAL EXPENSES
The Committee has provided $250,000,000 for capital grants,
$130,000,000 more than the House allocation and $46,500,000
below the administration's request.
Northwest high-speed rail corridor.--The Committee expects
the Corporation to proceed in fiscal year 1997 according to its
capital business plan, with respect to funding its share of the
costs for high-speed passenger rail equipment and maintenance
facilities for this corridor. Project costs are being allocated
among Amtrak and other funding partners.
Pennsylvania Station redevelopment.--The high-speed
trainsets being procured for use along the Northeast corridor
are expected to bring 3 million more riders per year between
Washington, DC, and Boston, MA. Major stations along the route
have recently been improved to standards commensurate with such
service except for New York's Pennsylvania Station, linchpin of
the corridor and Amtrak's busiest station nationwide, which
remains code-deficient and overcrowded. The current station is
entirely underground. Of primary concern is vertical access to
its platforms which do not lie entirely under the existing
station. The platforms' western ends lie underneath the
historic James A. Farley Post Office, built at the turn of the
century when mail was delivered primarily by rail. Plans to
expand the station would convert a portion of the Farley
Building into an intermodal station, improving safety and
circulation and providing significant new platform access.
City, State, and private resources are to be used in
conjunction with Federal funds to improve the federally owned
station. The Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Corp., formed
in 1995, is currently preparing a detailed cost estimate for
the project. Once this cost estimate is completed, the
Committee encourages Amtrak to finalize the cost-sharing
agreement between the funding partners, prepare final drawings
and schedules, and complete the other preconstruction
activities so the project can proceed in a timely manner.
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
Summary of Fiscal Year 1997 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.
Under the Committee recommendation, a total program level
of $4,382,832,000 would be provided for the programs of the
Federal Transit Administration for fiscal year 1996. This is
$86,708,000 more than the budget request and $332,040,000 above
the House allocation.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations compared to fiscal year 1996, the
administration's request, and the House allowance:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 enacted \1\ Committee
Program 1997 estimate House allowance recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses................. $42,000,000 $43,652,000 $41,367,000 $42,147,000
Formula grants \2\...................... 2,052,925,000 2,151,972,000 2,052,925,000 2,149,185,000
Discretionary grants \3\ ............... 1,665,000,000 1,799,000,000 1,665,000,000 1,900,000,000
Transit planning and research........... 85,500,000 85,500,000 85,500,000 85,500,000
University transportation centers....... 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000
Washington Metro........................ 200,000,000 200,000,000 200,000,000 200,000,000
Violent crime reduction program......... ................ 10,000,000 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. 4,051,425,000 4,296,124,000 4,050,792,000 4,382,832,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reductions to comply with working capital fund, awards, and administrative provisions, and the
Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.
\2\ Includes limitation on obligations of $1,110,000,000 in fiscal year 1996 and $1,930,850,000 in fiscal year
1997 estimate and $1,930,850,000 in Committee recommendation.
\3\ Limitation on obligations.
Administrative Expenses
Appropriations, 1996.................................... $42,000,000
Budget estimate, 1997................................... 43,652,000
House allowance......................................... 41,367,000
Committee recommendation................................ 42,147,000
The Committee recommends a total of $42,147,000 in general
funds for administrative expenses. The amount provided is
$780,000 more than the House allowance and $1,505,000 less than
the administration's request.
The Committee agrees with the reductions made by the House,
except that it has added back $500,000 for nontechnical
training, $130,000 to provide for four regional community
planners, and $150,000 for the Director of Communications and
External Affairs and executive assistant positions.
Formula Grants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation Limitation
(general fund) (trust fund)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1996.............. $942,925,000 ($1,110,000,000)
Budget estimate, 1997............. 221,122,000 (1,930,850,000)
House allowance................... 490,000,000 (1,562,925,000)
Committee recommendation.......... 218,335,000 (1,930,850,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 $2,149,185,000 for continuation of
the Formula Grant Program including $115,122,428 for the
section 5311 Nonurban Formula Program; $56,049,949 for the
section 5310 Elderly and Disabled Program, and $1,978,012,623
for the section 5307, Urban Formula Grants Program.
Urbanized areas with populations of 200,000 or more.--These
areas would receive $1,778,731,872 (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 $189,390,688 (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 $115,122,428
under the section 5311 program. These funds are distributed
based on nonurbanized area population not including the one-
half percent setaside.
Elderly and disabled.--The section 5310 program would
receive $56,049,949.
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 continued language added to the
bill last year to hold cuts in operating assistance for those
urbanized areas [UZA's] under 200,000 in population to 25
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 by a subsequent 44 percent in fiscal year 1996, and
that further reductions may result in some combination of fare
increases, service cuts, or increased support at the State and
local government levels.
Operating aid for larger UZA's has been frozen at the
fiscal year 1996 level.
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, 1997.
The legislative intent of the ADA that fixed route public
transit operators provide complementary paratransit services
for eligible persons with disabilities did not assume the
transfer to public transit operators of the financial burden of
carrying persons with disabilities whose transportation costs
have traditionally been funded by Department of Health and
Human Services [DHHS] programs. Therefore, the Committee has an
interest in ensuring that the existing human services
transportation programs funded through DHHS not be eliminated
or consolidated without an adequate and ongoing financial
commitment by DHHS to pay for the transportation costs of their
clients whether such transportation is provided by traditional
human services transportation networks or by ADA complementary
paratransit services.
The Committee reiterates its position 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. The Committee believes that coordination of
transportation for persons with disabilities, seniors, and
others funded by DHHS programs or by public transit operators
under their ADA complementary paratransit obligations must be
planned and implemented at the State and regional levels in
order to ensure cost-effective service delivery and improve
access to DHHS program services. Federal guidelines to
facilitate such coordination planning will provide assistance
to public transit operators, community transportation
providers, and human service transportation providers to
achieve coordination objectives. In addition, a uniform cost
accounting system is key to fostering coordination among the
myriad Federal programs which fund transportation in order to
streamline the payment for the administration of services
funded by each program.
The Committee directs the Secretary of Transportation,
working with the Secretary of Health and Human Services through
the DOT/DHHS Coordinating Council, to develop these guidelines
for State and regional planning to achieve specific
transportation coordination objectives including, but not
limited to: joint identification of human service client
transportation needs and the appropriate mix of transportation
services to meet those needs; the expanded use of public
transit services to deliver human services program
transportation; and cost-sharing arrangements for DHHS program
clients transported by ADA paratransit systems based on a
uniform accounting system.
University Transportation Centers
Appropriations, 1996.................................... $6,000,000
Budget estimate, 1997................................... 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, 1996.................................... $85,500,000
Budget estimate, 1997................................... 85,500,000
House allowance......................................... 85,500,000
Committee recommendation
85,500,000
The Committee has recommended $85,500,000 for transit
planning and research. This is the same as both the House
allocation and the administration's request. The Committee has
allocated the funds in the same manner as did the House. The
separate programs combined are: the research, training, and
human resources program (sections 6, 10, 11, and 20), the
planning program (section 5303), and the rural transit
assistance program (section 5311(b)(2)). 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.
The following table summarizes the Committee
recommendation:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
1996 program 1997 budget House Committee
level estimate allowance recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan planning................................. $39,500,000 $39,500,000 $39,500,000 $39,500,000
Rural transit assistance program...................... 4,500,000 4,500,000 4,500,000 4,500,000
State planning and research program................... 8,250,000 8,250,000 8,250,000 8,250,000
Transit cooperative research program.................. 8,250,000 8,250,000 8,250,000 8,250,000
National Transit Institute............................ 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000
National planning and research program................ 22,000,000 22,000,000 22,000,000 22,000,000
---------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................... 85,500,000 85,500,000 85,500,000 85,500,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee has provided funding for a number of
important initiatives in fiscal year 1997. They are as follows:
Project ACTION (accessible community transportation in our
Nation)...................................................$2,000,000
Fuel cell bus technology......................................15,000,000
Computer integrated transit environment [CITME] at Greater
Cleveland RTA............................................. 2,700,000
The Committee has not earmarked other projects mentioned in
the House report that are not listed in this report. This
action is taken without prejudice to final decisions on project
funding that will be made in conference.
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.
Advanced lead acid battery consortium [ALABC].--The
Committee has previously expressed its strong support for the
technology development and deployment program of the advanced
lead acid battery consortium [ALABC], and notes that FTA has
been directed to provide a total of $1,500,000 to the ALABC in
Public Laws 104-19 and 104-50. The Committee understands that
FTA has awarded $250,000, and is processing a further grant
award in the amount of $500,000 for ALABC work in conjunction
with the Santa Barbara transit system. The Committee directs
the FTA to complete the award of $500,000 no later than
September 30, 1996, and to award the balance of $750,000 to the
ALABC no later than December 31, 1996.
Fuel Cell Transit Bus Program.--The Committee directs the
FTA to provide $15,000,000 to continue the advancement of the
Fuel Cell Transit Bus Program. 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
this important new technology.
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.
Trust Fund Share of Transit Programs
(Liquidation of Contract Authorization)
(highway trust fund)
Appropriations, 1996....................................($1,120,850,000)
Budget estimate, 1997................................... (1,920,000,000)
House allowance......................................... (1,920,000,000)
Committee recommendation
(1,920,000,000)
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 1997, as in
1996, 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, 1996....................................($1,665,000,000)
Budget estimate, 1997................................... (1,799,000,000)
House allowance......................................... (1,665,000,000)
Committee recommendation................................ (1,900,000,000)
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
fixed guideway expenditures for existing older systems.
The Committee recommends a level of $1,900,000,000. This is
$235,000,000 more than that recommended by the House and
$101,000,000 above the administration's request.
The following table summarizes the Committee
recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
1996 program 1997 budget House Committee
level estimate allowance recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bus and bus facilities............................... 333,000 274,000 333,000 375,000
Fixed guideway modernization......................... 666,000 725,000 666,000 725,000
New systems and new extensions....................... 666,000 800,000 666,000 800,000
----------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................................... 1,665,000 1,799,000 1,665,000 1,900,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 1994 transportation appropriations bill (Public Law
103-122) and previous acts making these funds available for
reallocation in fiscal year 1997. As in previous years, a
general provision (sec. 317) is included which limits funding
availability for these fiscal year 1997 discretionary funds to
3 years from enactment. A total of $56,956,000 has been
reprogrammed to the new systems account, increasing the
available funding from $800,000,000 to $856,956,000.
The following amounts have been reallocated from various
projects to new starts funding for fiscal year 1997:
Fiscal year 1992:
Detroit............................................. $4,890,000
San Jose-Gilroy..................................... 4,000,000
Fiscal year 1995: New Bedford/Fall River................ 744,000
Chicago central area circulator balances................ 47,322,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 56,956,000
Reallocation of Seattle-Tacoma Commuter Rail new starts
funding.--The House reallocated unobligated fiscal year 1992
balances of $1,620,000 from the Seattle-Tacoma Commuter Rail
new start account to increase the amount of available new
starts funding for fiscal year 1997. However, these funds were
reprogrammed during the conference on the fiscal year 1996
Transportation appropriations bill (House Report 104-286, p.
66); and subsequently, King County, WA, and its coapplicants
have been administratively authorized by the Federal Transit
Administration to incur costs against this money. The
Committee, therefore, expects the Federal Transit
Administration to release these funds for purposes consistent
with the intent of the conferees, and opposes the House action
reallocating these funds.
Interstate compact infrastructure banks.--Provisions in
this bill provide funding for 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
Due to budget constraints, the Committee has deleted
funding for many meritorious bus and bus facilities projects
which were earmarked in the House report. This action was taken
without prejudice to these projects. The Committee expects to
give full consideration to all projects mentioned in the House
and Senate reports during conference committee deliberations on
the Fiscal Year 1997 Transportation Appropriations Act.
The recommended amount includes the following allocations:
Committee
State/city and project description recommendation
Arkansas: Little Rock, Central AR Transit, buses and bus
loading station..................................... $2,000,000
California:
Lake Tahoe, South Shore Transport., coordinated
transit system.................................... 2,532,000
Los Angeles County MTA, ATTB prototype buses........ 13,100,000
Los Angeles neighborhood initiative................. 3,000,000
San Joaquin RTD downtown transit center (livable
communities)...................................... 5,500,000
Solano County Transit, buses and linking express
service to BART................................... 1,920,000
Thousand Oaks multimodal center..................... 600,000
Delaware: Bus facility (in New Castle County)........... 10,000,000
Florida:
Miami Beach, electric battery buses................. 1,200,000
Tampa (Hillsborough area RTD), buses (HARTline)..... 5,600,000
Indiana: Indianapolis metro, new buses.................. 5,000,000
Iowa:
Cedar Rapids:
Hybrid electric bus consortium.................. 892,600
Surface park and ride lot....................... 897,000
Sioux City multimodal park and ride facility........ 750,000
Waterloo, intermodal bus facility................... 665,000
Kansas: Johnson City, bus maintenance center............ 4,400,000
Louisiana: Shreveport, Lafayette and New Orleans bus
facilities.......................................... 7,000,000
Massachusetts:
Hyannis, Cape Cod intermodal transportation center.. 6,500,000
Springfield, Union Station intermodal facility...... 750,000
Michigan:
Michigan DOT ISTEA earmark for buses and related
equipment......................................... 10,000,000
City of Detroit, intermodal transportation center... 10,000,000
Mississippi:
Jackson:
Buses........................................... 1,500,000
Downtown multimodal transit center.............. 3,500,000
Missouri:
Kansas City:
KCATA buses..................................... 5,300,000
Union Station intermodal........................ 13,000,000
Kansas City Trolley Corp., replacement trolleys..... 320,000
State of Missouri, buses and bus facilities......... 20,000,000
Nevada: Reno, Regional Transportation Commission buses.. 3,469,000
New Jersey: New Jersey Transit, Clean Air Act bus fleet
improvements........................................ 6,000,000
New Mexico: Albuquerque URICA bus project............... 4,000,000
New York:
Broome County, buses................................ 1,900,000
Chemung County, intermodal center................... 3,000,000
Long Island Bus alternative fuels fueling facilities 3,800,000
New York City, natural gas buses.................... 20,000,000
Rochester-Genessee RTA, buses....................... 3,500,000
Utica, buses, support vehicles...................... 2,400,000
Alternative bus fuels fueling facilities: Brooklyn,
Bronx, and Manhattan.............................. 12,000,000
North Dakota: Bismarck and Mandan (Bis-Man Transit)
intermodal center................................... 1,500,000
Ohio:
Akron, diesel and CNG buses, vehicle locator system. 11,000,000
Cincinnati (southwest Ohio RTA):
Buses........................................... 15,000,000
Administrative facility......................... 3,000,000
Grand River (Laketran), maintenance facility........ 1,000,000
Oregon:
Eugene, Lane Transit District, buses and station.... 5,100,000
Central City streetcar.............................. 6,000,000
Hood River, buses................................... 175,000
Salem, downtown transit center...................... 3,700,000
Portland, South bus mall extension.................. 12,800,000
Wilsonville, transit vehicles....................... 250,000
Pennsylvania:
Erie, intermodal complex............................ 4,000,000
Philadelphia: Alternative fueled vehicles........... 8,000,000
South Carolina: Spartanburg, intermodal facility........ 2,938,400
Texas:
Brazos Valley woodlands town center project......... 2,700,000
East Texas, Liberty, Montgomery, and Polk Counties
service expansion................................. 6,000,000
Galveston trolley maintenance....................... 500,000
Utah:
Salt Lake City 2002 Winter Olympics:
Buses and facilities............................ 11,000,000
Intermodal centers.............................. 11,000,000
Vermont:
Burlington, multimodal center....................... 3,000,000
Rutland intermodal station.......................... 700,000
Urban and rural, buses and bus facilities........... 5,500,000
Virginia: Richmond, downtown intermodal station......... 20,000,000
Washington:
Chelan-Douglas multimodal center--Amtrak platform... 2,000,000
Seattle, Metro/King County multimodal............... 6,000,000
Seattle/King Co. Metro, transit transfer centers.... 4,000,000
West Virginia: Charleston, renovate maintenance facility 3,180,000
Wyoming: Fremont County, Shoshone and Arapahoe Nation's
buses and facility.................................. 1,773,000
Salem, OR.--The Committee directs that funds previously
provided for the city of Salem, OR, may be applied to the Salem
downtown transit center.
Logan Transit District, UT.--The Committee notes that the
Logan Transit District [LTD] plans to apply for funds in fiscal
year 1997 and looks favorably upon LTD's efforts to secure
discretionary bus funds.
fixed guideway modernization
The Committee recommends a total of $725,000,000 for the
modernization of existing rail transit systems. Under ISTEA all
of the funds are distributed by formula. The following table
itemizes by State the fiscal year 1997 rail modernization
allocations:
Fixed guideway modernization apportionments
Areas Apportionment
Arizona: Phoenix........................................ $543,840
California:
Los Angeles......................................... 8,187,646
Sacramento.......................................... 936,892
San Diego........................................... 1,930,273
San Francisco....................................... 47,144,013
San Jose............................................ 3,821,522
Colorado: Denver........................................ 428,341
Connecticut:
Hartford............................................ 495,272
Southwestern Connecticut............................ 31,834,843
Delaware: Wilmington.................................... 310,626
Washington, DC.......................................... 16,847,946
Florida:
Fort Lauderdale..................................... 1,126,692
Jacksonville........................................ 34,896
Miami............................................... 3,074,946
West Palm Beach..................................... 861,634
Georgia: Atlanta........................................ 6,911,566
Hawaii: Honolulu........................................ 252,354
Illinois: Chicago/Northwestern Indiana.................. 100,326,955
Louisiana: New Orleans.................................. 2,071,787
Maryland:
Baltimore........................................... 2,665,108
Baltimore commuter rail............................. 12,471,130
Massachusetts:
Boston.............................................. 50,136,690
Lawrence-Haverhill.................................. 472,380
Michigan: Detroit....................................... 175,326
Minnesota: Minneapolis.................................. 1,283,319
Missouri:
Kansas City......................................... 19,901
St. Louis........................................... 950,072
New Jersey:
Northeastern New Jersey............................. 63,352,402
Trenton............................................. 531,340
New York:
Buffalo............................................. 404,344
New York............................................ 248,719,886
Ohio:
Cleveland........................................... 10,484,874
Dayton.............................................. 1,629,075
Pennsylvania:
Philadelphia/Southern NJ............................ 72,073,388
Pittsburgh.......................................... 14,882,066
Puerto Rico: San Juan................................... 821,459
Oregon: Portland........................................ 991,010
Rhode Island: Providence................................ 959,185
Tennessee: Chattanooga.................................. 20,200
Texas:
Dallas.............................................. 287,857
Houston............................................. 2,172,061
Virginia: Norfolk....................................... 450,949
Washington:
Seattle............................................. 6,040,200
Tacoma.............................................. 188,823
Wisconsin: Madison...................................... 237,411
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total apportionment............................... 719,562,500
Section 23 set-aside.................................... 5,437,500
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total fixed guideway.............................. 725,000,000
NEW SYSTEMS
The bill includes $800,000,000, as requested in the
administration budget, and $56,956,000 of reprogrammed funds,
for a total of $856,956,000. 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:
Alaska-Hollis to Ketchikan ferry project................ $6,390,000
Atlanta-MARTA North Line extension...................... 62,000,000
Boston-South Boston Piers Transitway.................... 30,000,000
Burlington-Charlotte, VT, commuter rail................. 2,000,000
Chicago transit improvements............................ 20,000,000
Cincinnati/northern Kentucky rail line project.......... 3,000,000
Dallas-DART north central light rail extension project.. 12,000,000
Dallas-Fort Worth RAILTRAN.............................. 18,000,000
Florida (Miami) Tri-County commuter rail................ 20,000,000
Houston-METRO regional bus plan......................... 24,000,000
Jackson, Mississippi intermodal corridor................ 7,400,000
Kansas City, MO southtown corridor project.............. 3,600,000
Little Rock, AR, Junction Bridge........................ 6,000,000
Los Angeles metro rail MOS-3............................ 55,000,000
Maryland central corridor LRT........................... 5,000,000
Maryland commuter rail [MARC]........................... 50,000,000
Memphis, TN, regional rail plan......................... 6,400,000
Metro-Dade Transit east-west corridor, Florida.......... 5,000,000
Morgantown, WV, train control system.................... 4,240,000
New Jersey urban core/Secaucus.......................... 105,530,000
New Jersey urban core/Hudson-Bergen..................... 10,000,000
New Orleans Canal Street corridor....................... 10,000,000
New York 63d Street/Queens connector.................... 35,020,000
Oklahoma City, MAPS corridors transit system............ 10,000,000
Orlando-Lynx light rail project......................... 2,000,000
Pittsburgh busway projects.............................. 15,100,000
Portland Westside LRT project........................... 138,000,000
Portland South/North light rail transit................. 6,000,000
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, regional transit
plan................................................ 5,000,000
Sacramento.............................................. 7,000,000
Salt Lake City LRT...................................... 58,000,000
San Francisco BART Airport/Tasman extensions............ 20,000,000
Seattle-Renton-Tacoma commuter rail..................... 5,000,000
St. Louis Metrolink..................................... 30,000,000
St. Louis Metrolink/St. Clair County, IL, extension..... 45,000,000
Tampa-Lakeland commuter rail............................ 2,000,000
Virginia Rail Express Richmond to Washington commuter
rail project........................................ 8,000,000
Whitehall Ferry Terminal, New York...................... 5,000,000
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
Alaska-Hollis to Ketchikan ferry project.--The Committee
recommends $6,390,000 for the Alaska-Hollis to Ketchikan ferry
project in southeast Alaska. This project will improve ferry
service to provide vital transportation for residents of this
remote area, as well as for tourists. The project includes
building a passenger/vehicle ferry to operate year-round,
making two round trips per day on the 38-nautical mile route
between Hollis and Ketchikan, AK. The House provided no funds
for this project.
Atlanta-MARTA North Line extension.--The Committee
recommends $62,000,000 for the Atlanta-MARTA North Line
extension project. The House provided $66,820,000 for this
project. This 1.9-mile, two-station extension from the Dunwoody
station to North Springs is part of the larger 9 mile, five
station North Line extension to the MARTA heavy rail rapid
transit system. The segment from Buckhead to Dunwoody opened in
June 1996. The North Line extension will 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 local share
commitment for the federally funded portion of this extension
is 20 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. To date, $29,457,400 has been obligated, as
has the $10,000,000 provided in pre-ISTEA funds. No funds were
appropriated for this project in fiscal year 1994 or fiscal
year 1995. However, $41,900,252 was appropriated in fiscal year
1996. The FFGA funding schedule provides for $66,820,000 in
fiscal year 1997 new starts funds, with the remaining
$156,830,000 provided over fiscal years 1998-2001. To date,
$131,945,784 has been obligated to the entire project with only
the fiscal year 1996 appropriation 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 $30,000,000 for the South Boston Piers Transitway
project. The House provided $40,181,000 for this 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 and its construction is timed
to coincide with 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-$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
project received an appropriation of $19,818,888 in fiscal year
1996. The FFGA funding schedule provides for $53,720,000 in
fiscal year 1997. The remaining $164,600,000 would be provided
over the course of fiscal years 1998-2001. To date, $92,458,125
has been obligated to the project with only the fiscal year
1996 appropriation remaining unobligated. This project received
an ISTEA earmark of $278,000,000.
Burlington-Charlotte, VT, commuter rail.--The Committee
recommends $2,000,000 for the Federal share of capital
improvements for the Burlington-Charlotte commuter rail
project. The House provided no funds for this project. These
funds will be used for upgrades to the Vermont Railway
including track, signal, at grade crossing, and drainage
improvements. The terminus in Charlotte will be located near
Ferry Road. In Burlington, the terminus would be the newly
developed Main Street Landing/Union Station site. The project
will include the construction of three stations, in addition to
Union Station, with park-and-ride lots and integrated feeder
bus service. The State of Vermont has 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
major investment study [MIS] has been completed and a public
hearing on the preferred alternative has been held. The
preferred alternative is a combination of highway improvements,
passenger rail, and enhanced bus service. The MIS identifies a
cost-effectiveness index of $8 per new passenger trip. The
environmental assessment is currently being finalized. FTA has
not rated the financial plan. A total of $5,582,090 was
appropriated for this project in fiscal year 1996, completing
the Federal funding requirement. These moneys have not yet been
obligated. This project was not authorized in ISTEA.
Chicago transit improvements.--The Committee recommends
$20,000,000 for transit improvements in the city of Chicago.
The House provided $25,000,000 for transit improvements for the
city of Chicago to improve congestion and circulation in the
central business district. These projects include renovations
of existing subway stations, platform rehabilitation, and
installing a cab signal system. These improvements are to take
the place of the planned Chicago circulator project, which was
planned as a multilegged light rail transit system within
downtown Chicago. The cost of constructing the entire light
rail project was estimated to be $775,000,000 (escalated
dollars). Ridership was projected to be about 103,400 trips per
day. On October 24, 1995, the executive board of the Chicago
area circulator voted unanimously to recommend to the mayor and
the city council the termination of the project. On October 26,
1995, city staff notified FTA that the project had been
terminated. A letter confirming this decision has been received
by the city. FTA is currently working with the city to achieve
final close out of the project, and funds previously
appropriated for the circulator project have been reprogrammed
to other transit new starts.
Cincinnati/northern Kentucky rail line project.--The
Committee recommends $3,000,000 for this project, the same
amount as provided by the House. The corridor extends from the
Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport through
downtown Cincinnati to Paramount King's Island Amusement Park
in Warren County, OH. This 33-mile corridor parallels I-71 in a
generally northeast direction, and so is referred to as the
Northeast corridor. The capital cost of the rail alternative is
$800,000,000. The project is currently in the system planning
studies phase. For fiscal years 1994 through 1996, Congress has
appropriated $3,518,856 for the corridor.
Dallas-DART north central light rail extension project.--
The Committee recommends $12,000,000 for the Dallas-DART north
central light rail extension project. The House provided
$10,000,000 for this project. This project is a 11.4-mile, six-
station, $354,300,000 LRT extension to Plano. The southern 6.8
miles, from Park Lane to Richardson Transit Center, would be
double tracked. The northern 5.5 miles would be single track
initially with limited station development. Dallas area rapid
transit has completed a major investment study [MIS] and the
preferred alternative was selected in September 1994. The
project is now in the preliminary engineering phase. A draft
EIS should be ready for circulation in the summer of 1996. The
local share commitment to this project is 50 percent. The cost-
effectiveness index is $9 per new passenger trip. FTA has
assigned a financial rating of high to this project. Through
fiscal year 1996, Congress has appropriated $5,445,191 for this
project. To date, $1,504,800 have been obligated with
$3,940,391 in prior-year appropriations remaining unobligated.
The project is not authorized in ISTEA.
Dallas-Fort Worth RAILTRAN.--The Committee recommends
$18,000,000 for the Dallas-Fort Worth RAILTRAN project. The
House provided $12,500,000 for this project. This project,
scheduled to open in July 1999, 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
to the project. The capital costs of phases one and two are
$68,200,000 and $129,010,000 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 (46 percent), CMAQ funds (15 percent),
highway demonstration funds (16 percent), and local funds (23
percent). Through fiscal year 1996, Congress has appropriated
$11,385,383 for this project. To date, $2,480,000,000 has been
obligated with $8,905,383 of prior-year appropriations
remaining unobligated. The project received an ISTEA earmark of
$5,680,000.
Florida (Miami) Tri-County commuter rail.--The Committee
recommends $20,000,000 for the Tri-County commuter rail
project. The House provided $9,000,000 for this project. 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 1996, Congress appropriated
$34,380,000 in section 5309 new starts funds for Tri-Rail
improvements. To date, $24,500,000 has been obligated to the
project, with the fiscal year 1996 appropriation of
$9,880,000,000 remaining unobligated. Information concerning
the local share commitment to the program, cost-effectiveness
index, and financial plan has not been finalized. The estimated
total cost of the project is $428,300,000.
Houston-metro regional bus plan.--The Committee recommends
$24,000,000 for the Houston-metro regional bus plan. The House
provided $40,590,000 for this project, the same as the
administration's request. This $625,000,000 plan, developed by
Houston metro, consists of a package of major improvements to
the region's 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 $22,360,000 was provided
to this project in FTA's fiscal year 1996 appropriation. An
additional $118,590,000 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 $40,590,000
in fiscal year 1997 new starts funds, with the remaining
$172,390,000 needed to complete the project provided in fiscal
years 1998-2000. To date, $264,660,000 has been obligated to
the project with only the fiscal year 1996 appropriation
remaining unobligated. The project received an ISTEA earmark of
$500,000,000.
Jackson, MS, intermodal corridor.--The Committee recommends
$7,400,000 for the Jackson, MS, intermodal corridor project.
The funds provided are for right-of-way acquisition, design,
and reconstruction of existing rail viaducts to provide access
to the downtown multimodal transit corridor.
Kansas City, MO, Southtown corridor project.--The Committee
recommends $3,600,000 for the Kansas City Southtown corridor
project. The House provided $1,500,000 for this project. The
Kansas City Area Transportation Authority [KCATA] completed a
major investment study [MIS] in the Southtown corridor and has
entered P.E. The corridor extends from the riverfront and
downtown Kansas City south to 85th Street. The locally
preferred alternative [LPA] consists of a 15.2-mile light rail
line connecting the downtown Rivermarket area with the Country
Club Plaza south of the downtown. 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 $15 per new passenger trip. The local
share commitment to this project is 25 percent. Through fiscal
year 1996, all available funds remaining from a prior
appropriation to this project have been obligated ($1,040,000).
This project received an ISTEA earmark of $5,900,000.
Little Rock, AR, Junction Bridge project.--The Committee
has provided $6,000,000 for the Junction Bridge project in
Little Rock, AR. The House provided no funding for this
project. The project will upgrade the track and provide the
equipment necessary to use Junction Bridge in Little Rock for
passenger rail service. The bridge is in close proximity to
riverfront developments, and approaches to the bridge are
adjacent to the arena property. The funding provided will
purchase rail cars, track upgrade, passenger platform, and
right-of-way acquisition.
Los Angeles.--The Committee recommends $55,000,000 for the
Federal share of MOS-3 (minimum operable segment 3) of the
Metro Rail Red Line project in Los Angeles. The House provided
$90,000,000 for this project. The first segment, MOS-1, opened
for revenue service in January 1993. MOS-2 is currently under
construction (with a 2-mile, three-station segment to Wilshire
and Western to open in July 1996), 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 new start funding for the MidCity, north
Hollywood, and East Side phase 1 segments are estimated to be
$1,416,490,000. The local share commitment to this project is
70 percent. ISTEA authorized $695,000,000, plus $535,000,000 in
advanced construction authority. Through fiscal year 1996 and
prior years, $440,710,000 was appropriated for MOS-3. Funding
in the amount of $158,860,000 is recommended in fiscal year
1997 under the FFGA funding schedule, with the remaining
$816,920,000 to be provided over the course of fiscal years
1998-2002. A total of $356,740,000 has been obligated to date
with only the fiscal year 1996 appropriation of $83,980,000
remaining unobligated.
Maryland central corridor LRT.--The Committee recommends
$5,000,000 for the central corridor LRT extensions. The House
provided $10,260,000 for the project, the same as the
administration's request. 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. The total cost of the three extensions
of the project is estimated to be $106,340,000. 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 was
signed for the three extensions. Through fiscal year 1996,
$62,380,000 has been appropriated with an additional
$12,300,000 in prior-year deobligated funds also applied to the
project in fiscal year 1996. To date, FTA has obligated
$74,640,000 (including $12,300,000 in deobligated funds) to the
project with no prior-year appropriations remaining
unobligated.
Maryland commuter rail [MARC].--The Committee recommends
$50,000,000 for the MARC commuter rail project. The House
provided $27,000,000 for these commuter rail extension
projects. Planned system extensions 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 major investment study [MIS] to evaluate transit
alternatives in the Waldorf area. The MIS is expected to be
completed in late 1996. 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 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 Frederick
extension and capital improvement projects in June 1995 for
$105,250,000, which includes $13,900,000 previously approved
under the first increment of funding for the project. Through
fiscal year 1996, Congress has appropriated $23,770,000 applied
to the FFGA for this project. The FFGA funding schedule calls
for $81,480,000 in new starts funding in fiscal years 1997-98.
To date, $13,890,000 has been obligated to the project with
only the fiscal year 1996 appropriation of $9,880,000 remaining
unobligated. This project received an ISTEA earmark of
$160,000,000.
Memphis, TN regional rail plan.--The Committee recommends
$6,400,000 for the Memphis Medical Center study. The House
provided $2,000,000 for this project. The Memphis Area Transit
Authority [MATA] currently operates the 2.2-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. 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. To date, Congress has
appropriated $1,730,000 for the Memphis regional rail plan, of
which $500,000 has been obligated. Only the fiscal year 1996
appropriation ($1,230,000) remains to be obligated.
Metro-Dade Transit east-west corridor, Florida.--The
Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the Metro-Dade Transit
east-west corridor study. The House provided no funding for
this project.
Morgantown Personal Rapid Transit [MPRT], West Virginia.--
The Committee has provided $4,240,000 for the replacement of
the computerized train control system at the Morgantown
Personal Rapid Transit system in Morgantown, WV. The MPRT was
designed and built at a cost of $170,000,000, 80 percent of
which was funded through section 3 transit assistance.
New Jersey urban core.--The Committee recommends
$115,530,000 for the New Jersey urban core project, and directs
that $105,530,000 shall go toward the Secaucus transfer and
$10,000,000 shall go toward the Hudson-Bergen light rail line.
The House provided a total of $115,530,000, the same as the
administration's request, with $10,000,000 for the Hudson-
Bergen line and $105,530,000 for the Secaucus transfer. The
urban core project consists of a number of rail improvements
designed to improve mobility in northern New Jersey, and
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 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 through 1997. 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 $444,250,000 through fiscal year 1998, including funds
provided in prior years. The Secaucus transfer project consists
of 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. The project is currently under construction. The
Secaucus transfer project received an appropriation of
$79,290,000 in fiscal year 1996. The project's FFGA funding
schedule calls for $105,530,000 in new starts funding in fiscal
year 1997 with a final $26,260,000 in fiscal year 1998. The
administration has also announced plans to negotiate an FFGA
for $515,000,000 for the initial operating segment (10 miles)
of the Hudson-Bergen light rail project. The complete project
is a 20.5-mile, 33-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. The 10-mile initial
operating segment is in preliminary engineering. The cost-
effectiveness index is $5 per new passenger trip. The
$694,000,000 Newark-Elizabeth light rail project, an 8-mile,
15-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 $5 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 only the fiscal year 1996
appropriation ($79,290,000) remaining unobligated; $108,990,000
has been obligated to the Hudson-Bergen project with no 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.
New Orleans Canal Street corridor.--The Committee
recommends $10,000,000 for the New Orleans Canal Street
corridor project. The House provided $8,000,000 for this
project. New Orleans Regional Transit Authority [RTA] completed
a major investment study in March 1995, which evaluated transit
alternatives on the 4.4-mile Canal Street corridor. In
September 1995, FTA approved the initiation of preliminary
engineering and the draft EIS. The locally preferred
alternative follows 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. Through fiscal year 1996, Congress has appropriated
$18,440,000 for this project. To date, $5,760,000 has been
obligated with $12,680,000 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 $35,020,000 for the Queens Boulevard/63d Street
connection project. The House provided $35,020,000 for this
project, the same as the administration's request. This \1/3\-
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 and is expected to be completed in 2001. The
local share commitment to this project is 49 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 through
1996. A FFGA for that amount has been issued for the Queens
Boulevard project. Through fiscal year 1996, Congress has
appropriated $271,080,000 for this project, all of which has
been obligated to the project. The FFGA calls for $35,020,000
in new starts funding in fiscal year 1997 to complete the
Federal commitment.
Oklahoma City, MAPS corridor transit system.--The Committee
has provided $10,000,000 for the Oklahoma City metropolitan
area projects [MAPS] rail trolley system. The system is
estimated to cost about $22,000,000 and is an integral
component of the city's $285,000,000 locally funded MAPS
program. Project sponsors propose a 60-percent Federal/40-
percent local match.
Orlando-Lynx light rail project.--The Committee recommends
$2,000,000 for the Orlando, FL, Lynx light rail project. The
House provided $2,000,000 for this project, which is currently
under development.
Pittsburgh Airport busway.--The Committee recommends
$15,100,000 for the airport busway project. The House provided
no funding for this project. The Port Authority (PATransit) is
constructing a 20-mile busway in the airport corridor between
downtown Pittsburgh and the Greater Pittsburgh International
Airport. Phase 1 of the project is a 7-mile busway from
Carnegie to downtown Pittsburgh. Phase 1 also includes a 1.1-
mile HOV facility comprised of a rehabilitated Wabash Tunnel
and a new bridge across the Monongahela River. In the remaining
12 miles of the corridor, from Carnegie to the airport, buses
will operate in mixed traffic on the relatively uncongested
Parkway West (I-279). Phase 1 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 commits $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 1996, Congress
appropriated $98,260,000 in new start funds for the project
with an additional $22,740,000 in prior-year deobligated funds
also applied to the project in fiscal year 1996. With these
additional funds, the FFGA funding commitment for this project
has now been completed. New starts funds totaling $121,000,000
have been obligated to the project with no prior-year
appropriations remaining unobligated.
Portland Westside LRT project.--The Committee recommends
$138,000,000 for the Portland Westside LRT project. The House
provided $90,000,000 for this project. 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. 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 now 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 start
share for this segment was $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 applied to
this project. Through fiscal year 1996, Congress has
appropriated $393,250,000 in new start funds. To date, all
appropriated funds has been obligated with no prior-year
appropriations remaining unobligated. The Committee intends
this appropriation partially to address project progress needs
that have been delayed due to the project's absorption of costs
associated with tunneling and low floor cars. The Committee
also has included a general provision to assure that project
costs include items associated with tunneling, the introduction
of low-floor light rail cars, project elements delayed because
of premium costs for those cars, and for other necessary costs.
Portland South/North light rail transit.--The Committee
recommends $6,000,000 for the Portland South/North LRT. The
South/North light rail transit project is the third link in
Portland, Oregon's regional light rail transit [LRT] system
connecting the already complete Eastside (Banfield) LRT line
and the Westside/Hillsboro line currently under construction.
Portland area residents overwhelmingly passed a bond measure in
1994 to provide up to $475,000,000 of local matching funds for
the project. Additionally, the Oregon Legislature has approved
$375,000,000 of State lottery funds for the South/North LRT
line.
Research Triangle Park regional transit plan.--The
Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the Research Triangle Park
transit plan in Raleigh-Durham, NC. The House provides no
funding for this project.
Sacramento.--The Committee recommends $7,000,000 for the
Sacramento south corridor project. The House provided
$6,000,000 for this extension project. The Sacramento Regional
Transit District [RTD] is proposing a 6.3-mile, $220,300,000,
LRT line on the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way. This will
be phase I of a planned 11.3-mile extension in the south
Sacramento corridor. The local share commitment to this project
is 53 percent. The cost-effectiveness index is $6 per new
passenger trip. FTA has rated the capital finance plan for
phase I as high. The administration has announced plans to
negotiate an FFGA with Sacramento to provide a commitment of
$100,000,000 in new starts funds to construct the 6.3-mile
extension. Through fiscal year 1996, $3,960,000 has been
appropriated for this project. To date, $1,980,000 has been
obligated to the project, with only the fiscal year 1996
appropriation remaining unobligated. ISTEA authorized
$26,000,000 for this project.
Salt Lake City LRT.--The Committee recommends $58,000,000
for the Salt Lake City south LRT project. The House provided
$20,000,000 for this project, and included bill language
stipulating that not less than $10,000,000 of that amount shall
be for related high occupancy vehicle and intermodal design
costs. The Committee has deleted that restriction from the
bill. 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. FTA has
negotiated an FFGA with UTA committing $246,000,000 in new
starts funds to the project. Total cost of the project is
$312,500,000. Through fiscal year 1996, a total of $38,640,000
has been appropriated by Congress to UTA (including $15,520,000
in pre-ISTEA funds), of which $32,040,000 has been included in
the FFGA. To date, $22,390,000 has been obligated to this
project pursuant to the FFGA with only the fiscal year 1996
appropriation ($9,640,000) remaining unobligated. This project
received an ISTEA earmark of $131,000,000.
San Francisco BART Airport/Tasman extensions.--The
Committee recommends a total of $20,000,000 for the San
Francisco BART Airport/Tasman extensions. The House provided
$35,000,000 for the two San Francisco projects. The
administration had requested $51,070,000 for the San Francisco
International Airport extension and $10,000,000 for the San
Jose Tasman west light rail extension, for a total of
$61,070,000. BART, in conjunction with the San Mateo County
Transit District (SamTrans), plans to build a 7.5-mile, four-
station BART extension from Colma Station to Millbrae with an
aerial station at the planned international terminal at San
Francisco International Airport.
FTA has announced plans to negotiate a FFGA with BART to
commit $750,000,000 toward construction of the proposed
extension. The project is now in the preliminary engineering
stage. The locally preferred alternative is estimated to cost
$1,110,000,000. The cost-effectiveness index is $20 per new
passenger trip for the locally preferred alternative.
The Tasman project has been divided into two phases in
light of the court decision invalidating a countywide tax which
would have provided the local share for the entire project. The
initial phase, Tasman west, comprises the western portion of
the original project and measures 7.6 miles in length,
connecting the northern terminus of the existing Guadalupe
light rail system with the CalTrain Commuter Rail Station at
Mountain View. FTA entered into a FFGA with Santa Clara County
to provide an additional $90,000,000 in the out-years for the
initial phase. Preliminary engineering on the full system
extension was completed in August 1992, the final EIS was
approved in December 1992, and final design was started in May
1993. Environmental clearance for the initial phasing of the
project was received in March 1996.
The California Transportation Commission has confirmed the
State share for the new first phase and the local funding was
approved by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission [MTC] at
the regional level. The cost-effectiveness index for the Tasman
project is $18 per new passenger trip. Overall, $215,280,000 of
the $512,750,000 authorized by ISTEA in section 5309 new starts
funds for the period fiscal years 1992-97 has been appropriated
by Congress for the San Francisco Bay region through fiscal
year 1996. Consistent with the ISTEA legislation, the MTC 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 $60,750,000,000 to the
Tasman project. A $32,000,000 allocation of unobligated
appropriations to Tasman, and the fiscal year 1996 and prior-
year unobligated appropriations for the BART Airport extension
($11,115,051) have not yet been obligated.
The Committee believes that BART has diligently made
progress toward addressing the cost, environmental, and
financing issues raised in last year's conference report;
however, the Committee believes that significant problems
remain and must be resolved before a long-term Federal funding
commitment for the project shall be made. GAO indicates that
the current cost estimate relies upon speculative savings from
the so-called turnkey approach, it ignores escalation, and it
includes inadequate mitigation costs. Turnkey projects are
supposed to move forward quickly and save money. Clearly, the
uncertainty surrounding both the amount and the source of this
project's local funding, as well as delays in its anticipated
Federal funding will cause finance charges to increase and make
any cost savings highly unlikely. As a result, BART's cost
estimates unrealistically understate the real project cost. Its
financing plan depends upon high appropriations in the out-
years that are most uncertain. Should these appropriations fail
to be made, the financing costs will further increase. Since
all local agencies have capped their contributions to the
project, there are no local sources of funds for cost
increases. Further, the Committee is concerned that BART still
has not identified the particular activities on which airport
funds will be spent and has not satisfied legitimate concerns
that those expenditures might improperly divert airport revenue
from airport uses.
Three local organizations have announced their intention to
challenge the project under the California Environmental
Quality Act, and suits under Federal environmental laws are
also likely. In addition, a group of local officials has
formally commenced the California initiative process to place
the issue of whether BART goes to Millbrae on the ballot. In
light of the extensive commitments of Federal funds in existing
full funding grant agreements for other new starts projects,
the Committee believes that it would be inadvisable to execute
a long-term commitment for a project of this scope until the
availability of adequate funds to cover costs increases is
demonstrated and the remainder of these issues are resolved.
The Committee encourages the Federal Transit Administration
to continue to work with BART to develop a project and a
financing plan that are appropriate for a full funding grant
agreement, but directs the FTA not to execute a full funding
grant agreement or to issue a letter of no prejudice for this
project until BART has met all local funding commitment
criteria of 49 U.S.C. section 5309(e), including the
demonstration of adequate funds to cover cost increases and to
prevent deterioration of other services. As part of this
process, the FTA is directed to require BART and the airport to
identify the particular activities on which airport funds are
to be spent, and to obtain FAA approval of such expenditures.
Further, the Committee directs the FTA not to execute a full
funding grant agreement or to issue a letter of no prejudice
for this project until all litigation regarding the project has
been resolved and the previously announced initiative has been
submitted to the San Mateo County voters on the next general
election ballot or the time for qualifying the initiative for
such ballot has expired. Finally, the Committee reiterates its
firm direction to the FTA that the FTA notify the Committee 60
days prior to the issuance of a full funding grant agreement
that each of the Committee concerns noted in this report and
House Report 104-286 have been resolved.
Seattle-Renton-Tacoma commuter rail.--The Committee
recommends $5,000,000 for the Seattle-Renton-Tacoma commuter
rail project. The House provided no funding for this project.
The three county Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority
[RTA] Board has adopted a revised master plan for transit in
light of voter rejection of a $6,700,000,000 proposal. The new
plan, while scaled down and valued at $3,500,000,000 in
proposed transportation improvements, includes substantial
commuter rail service in the region (principally between
Seattle and Tacoma) as well as revised LRT and expanded bus
service. A major investment study is currently underway. To
date, $1,880,000 has been obligated with $3,950,000 in prior-
year appropriations remaining available and unobligated. No
appropriation was made to the project in fiscal year 1996. This
project received an ISTEA earmark of $25,000,000.
St. Louis Metrolink.--The Committee has provided
$30,000,000 for metrolink for light rail cars and transit
enhancements that will increase safety and improve service.
Metrolink's ridership averages 40,000 daily. The additional
cars will reduce service time and help maintain train
schedules.
St. Louis Metrolink (St. Clair County, IL) corridor.--The
Committee recommends $45,000,000 for the St. Clair County
corridor LRT. The House provided $20,000,000 for this project,
the same as the administration's request. The East-West Gateway
Coordinating Council [EWGCC] has completed a major investment
study of transit alternatives for the corridor between downtown
East St. Louis, IL, and the Mid-America Airport in St. Clair
County. The selected alternative is a 27-mile LRT extension
with a capital cost of $431,500,000. The administration has
announced plans to negotiate an FFGA for the initial segment of
this alternative, terminating at Belleville. The Federal
commitment has been set at $236,000,000. The local share
commitment to this project is 20 percent, and a medium/high
rating for financial capacity has been assigned by FTA. The
cost-effectiveness index is $23 per new passenger trip for the
full 27 mile project. Through fiscal year 1996, $16,400,000 has
been appropriated to this project. To date, $8,490,000 has been
obligated and $7,930,000 remains unobligated. This project is
not authorized in ISTEA.
Tampa-Lakeland commuter rail.--The Committee recommends
$2,000,000 for the Tampa-Lakeland commuter rail project. The
House provided $2,000,000 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.
Two rail studies have recently been completed: a feasibility
study looking at system design, operational characteristics,
and cost; and a study identifying public support for such a
system. The Tampa Commuter Rail Authority will be completing a
major investment study in late 1996 to develop information on
transit alternatives in the corridor.
Virginia Rail Express Richmond to Washington commuter rail
project.--The Committee recommends $8,000,000 for the Quantico
Creek bridge for the Virginia Rail Express [VRE] Richmond to
Washington commuter rail project. The House provided no funding
for this project, which is in the development stage.
Whitehall Ferry Terminal, New York.--The Committee
recommends $5,000,000 for the Whitehall Ferry Terminal study.
The House provided $2,500,000 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.
Mass Transit Capital Fund
(Liquidation of Contract Authorization)
(Highway Trust Fund)
Appropriations, 1996....................................($2,375,000,000)
Budget estimate, 1997................................... (2,000,000,000)
House allowance......................................... (2,000,000,000)
Committee recommendation
(2,300,000,000)
The bill includes $2,300,000,000 to liquidate obligations
incurred under contract authority provided in section 21 of the
Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended.
Washington Metro
Appropriations, 1996.................................... $200,000,000
Budget estimate, 1997................................... 200,000,000
House allowance......................................... 200,000,000
Committee recommendation
200,000,000
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 1996,
$849,700,000 has been appropriated, leaving a balance of
$350,300,000.
Violent Crime Reduction Programs
(VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION TRUST FUND)
Appropriations, 1996....................................................
Budget estimate, 1997................................... $10,000,000
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
County of Kauai, HI.--The Committee has included a general
provision (sec. 338) clarifying that funds provided under the
Federal Transit Administration's discretionary grants program
for the County of Kauai in the fiscal years 1994-95
appropriations acts shall be available for operating expenses,
consistent with the directives of the Committee reports
accompanying those two bills.
WMATA oversight.--The Committee has retained the House
provision (sec. 329) requiring that FTA's oversight of the
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority be conducted
from the agency's Washington, DC, offices.
ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
The St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation is a wholly
owned Government corporation established by the St. Lawrence
Seaway Act of May 14, 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, 1996.................................... \1\ $10,150,000
Budget estimate, 1997................................... 10,065,000
House allowance......................................... 10,037,000
Committee recommendation................................ 10,337,000
\1\ Does not include reductions pursuant to sections 327, 335, and 349
of Public Law 104-50 and section 31002 of Public Law 104-134.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 maintain, 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 1997, the Committee recommends an
appropriation of $10,337,000. This $300,000 increase above the
House allowance was made at the request of the Department of
Transportation, and reflects costs associated with DOT employee
buyouts. The Department has made good progress in meeting the
fiscal year 1999 National Performance Review [NPR] targets
regarding employment. Because it is a small agency, the SLSDC
contains a disproportionately high number of NPR targeted
positions.
Performance-based organization [PBO] initiative.--The
administration has proposed that eight Government agencies
restructure themselves as performance-based organizations
[PBO's]. The St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
[SLSDC] is one of these candidate agencies (the others are
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; Patent and
Trademark Office; National Technical Information Service;
Defense Commissary Agency; Federal Housing Administration
mortgage insurance services; Government National Mortgage
Association; and Federal Retirement and Insurance Service).
Each candidate agency is coordinating with the ``National
Performance Review,'' Office of Management and Budget, and
Office of Personnel Management to develop authorizing
legislation that is customized to meet its unique needs. Though
the initial PBO initiative was announced on March 4, 1996,
enabling legislation has not yet been submitted to Congress to
establish the SLSDC as a performance-based organization.
It is the Committee's understanding that as a PBO, the
Corporation would remain part of the Department of
Transportation, but would be freed of certain departmental
constraints. For instance, as a PBO the Corporation would be
allowed to streamline its organization, personnel, and
procurement rules; would have authority to conduct routine
negotiations directly with the Canadian Seaway Authority
regarding seaway operations; would be free to set its own
policies and directives as they relate to operations; and would
no longer be required to contribute to certain expenses shared
by departmental operating expenses, such as working capital
fund and reimbursable agreement costs. The Committee feels that
there are potential operations improvements and cost savings
associated with this restructuring, but is concerned that,
under the current proposal, the Corporation would be funded by
a mandatory annual authorization from the harbor maintenance
trust fund, and would not be subject to the annual
appropriations process. This lack of oversight is not
acceptable to the Committee, nor would it be feasible to make
the necessary offsets from mandatory expenses within the DOT
and related agencies appropriations bill, which has very
limited mandatory funding.
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, 1996.................................... $23,937,000
Budget estimate, 1997................................... 28,169,000
House allowance......................................... 23,929,000
Committee recommendation
27,675,000
The Committee has provided a total of $27,675,000 for the
``Research and special programs'' account.
The following table summarizes the Committee
recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year House Committee
1996 enacted 1997 estimate allowance recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous materials safety...................... $12,650,000 $12,812,000 $12,772,000 $15,572,000
(Positions)................................. (111) (111) (131) (131)
Emergency transportation........................ $1,022,000 $993,000 $993,000 $993,000
(Positions)................................. (7) (7) (7) (7)
Research and technology......................... $3,288,000 $7,488,000 $3,323,000 $4,269,000
(Positions)................................. (13) (13) (13) (13)
Program and administrative support.............. $7,388,000 $6,876,000 $6,841,000 $6,841,000
(Positions)................................. (46) (46) (46) (46)
Accountwide adjustment.......................... -$411,000 .............. .............. ..............
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total, research and special programs...... $23,937,000 $28,169,000 $23,929,000 $27,675,000
(Positions)........................... (177) (177) (177) (197)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Vitality of the OHMS enforcement program.--The Committee
commends the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety for the
conduct of its compliance program. The OHMS continues to
maintain a vigorous enforcement program: the amount of
penalties collected has risen 50 percent over the last 3 years,
the cases closed per work year has increased. The Committee
encourages the OHMS to maintain this quality level of effort.
Inspection and enforcement.--The Committee recommends the
$260,000 requested for compliance support, including the
$40,000 deleted by the House for the hazardous materials
internship program. For many years, the Committee has sought to
strengthen the Federal/State partnership in hazardous materials
transportation safety. RSPA's internship program, together with
its support for training and COHMED, provides the foundation
for this partnership. Through this internship, Federal
officials learn first hand of the challenges facing State
enforcement personnel and State personnel observe Federal
enforcement and regulatory strategies and policies. This
technology transfer builds a cadre of experts for State
governments and leadership for COHMED. The States support this
internship program and more candidates apply each year than can
be supported. Most importantly, the program improves
communications between Federal and State enforcement personnel
in regulatory development, emergency response, and enforcement.
Hazardous materials training.--In order to maintain funding
at the fiscal year 1996 level, the Committee recommends
$350,000 for hazardous materials training, an increase of
$100,000 above the request. Because of the complexity of the
hazmat regulations which occupy more than 1,000 pages of the
Code of Federal Regulations, funds for additional training and
guidance should not be decreased. State enforcement officers
seek the quality training provided at the Transportation Safety
Institute. Industry favors inspections that are conducted by
competent Federal and State personnel. Information provided by
RSPA indicates that during the last 3 years attendance levels
at training sessions have held relatively constant at
approximately 2,750 students per year and demand has not
declined. RSPA proposes CD-Rom training modules as a partial
substitute for direct TSI-sponsored training, however, these
modules will not offer the advanced training and direct
guidance that TSI-sponsored instructors provide. The additional
funds recommended also will ensure continuation of a sufficient
number of train the trainer classes.
Special funding.--Following the recent ValuJet airliner
accident, it became obvious to the Committee that RSPA needed
to do more in the area of hazardous materials inspections. RSPA
is the focal point in the Department for all of the hazardous
materials regulatory actions. Presently, RSPA has 20 inspectors
that conduct 1,200 inspections annually of shippers and
packaging manufacturers. The Committee believes that it is
vital to provide additional support at this time so that the
Department may initiate several critical hazardous materials
safety initiatives. In conjunction with the Federal Aviation
Administration, RSPA is directed to provide additional
inspections, technical resources, and other activities
necessary for an expanded hazardous materials program, which
would include such things as: Expand inspections of hazardous
materials shippers, by placing emphasis on those who offer
those types of materials for air transportation; expand current
research initiatives to include a focus on hazardous materials
transportation by aircraft, especially in the reactive
chemicals and explosives area; and increase outreach to focus
more on air transportation issues, including the development of
training materials, a training program, and information on
shippers, freight forwarders, and carriers, and the need for
compliance with the hazardous materials regulations.
The Committee also expects that RSPA will increase its
rulemaking activities, and receiving more requests for
interpretations of hazmat regulations and exemption
applications as a result of FAA's hazardous materials program.
The Committee has provided $980,000 above the budget request
for contracted support, including:
--Information resource management.--$125,000 is provided to
upgrade the hazardous materials information system to
allow easier electronic data manipulation and
recordation of hazardous materials data and information
supplied by RSPA employees, Federal and State agencies,
industry, and the public.
--Hazardous materials training.--$225,000 is included to
upgrade current and for the development of future
training modules to assist FAA inspectors and to
conduct at least 20 additional separate hazardous
materials classes in 1997 that will involve the
training of approximately 350 to 400 FAA inspectors of
hazardous materials.
--Hazardous materials technology.--$315,000 is provided so
that RSPA may engage contractor support and additional
expertise to support an increase in the demand for
safety reviews of explosives and reactive chemicals,
and to also outline and provide information regarding
new chemicals, new technologies, and materials which
increase the safety of transportation of hazardous
materials.
--Hazardous materials information center.--$315,000 is
provided to support, by contract, the increased
workload.
In the personnel area, the Committee has provided
$1,680,000. It is expected that under this funding level RSPA
will be able to employ 15 additional inspectors, primarily to
enhance its capability to perform compliance oversight,
particularly with respect to shippers and offerers of hazardous
materials by air, and to strengthen RSPA's outreach activities
with Federal, State, and local compliance agencies, the
regulated industry, and the public. RSPA currently has 20
inspectors who conduct 1,200 inspections annually. FAA has
informed RSPA that it intends to significantly increase the
number of hazardous materials inspections by targeting air
carriers and air freight forwarders, of whom there are 2,000
domestically. In addition to the additional inspectors, the
Committee understands that it may be necessary to hire one or
two additional personnel in the exemptions and approvals
program, and one or two in the Office of the Chief Counsel for
the support and review of enforcement cases.
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 to mitigate disasters
and the implementation of these plans nationally and regionally
in an emergency.
The Committee recommends $993,000 for emergency
transportation, which is the amount requested by the
administration and provided by the House.
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 concurs with the $100,000 reduction proposed
by the House for technology dissemination, provides $300,000
above the House allowance for technology applications, and
provides $650,000 above the fiscal year 1996 level for
technology development.
Program and administrative support
The program support function provides legal, financial,
management, and administrative support to the operating offices
within RSPA. These support activities include executive
direction (Office of the Administrator), program and policy
support, civil rights and special programs, legal services and
support, and management and administration.
The Committee has provided $6,841,000 and concurs with the
$35,000 House reduction for information resources management.
Pipeline Safety
(Pipeline Safety Fund)
Appropriations, 1996.................................... $28,750,000
Budget estimate, 1997................................... 31,500,000
House allowance......................................... 28,460,000
Committee recommendation
28,750,000
The Research and Special Programs Administration is also
responsible for the Department's Pipeline Safety Program. This
activity 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 following table summarizes the Committee
recommendations:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------- House Committee
Program 1997 allowance recommendation
1996 enacted estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating expenses.................................... 9,550 10,683 10,683 10,300
Information systems................................... 1,200 1,490 1,350 1,200
Risk assessment/technical studies..................... 1,750 1,800 1,800 1,800
Compliance............................................ 300 300 300 300
Training and information dissemination................ 850 927 927 850
Emergency notification................................ 100 100 100 100
Public education...................................... 500 200 200 200
Environmental indexing................................ 500 ............ ............ ..............
Research and development.............................. 2,000 2,000 1,100 1,500
State grants.......................................... 11,000 12,500 12,000 12,000
Risk management grants................................ ............ 500 ............ 500
One-call grants....................................... 1,000 1,000 ( \1\ ) ( \1\ )
---------------------------------------------------------
Totals.......................................... 28,750 31,500 28,460 28,750
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funded at $1,000,000 from uncommitted balances in the reserve fund.
Operating expenses.--OPS requested an increase in travel
from $665,000 in fiscal year 1996 to $1,142,000 in fiscal year
1997. Because of budgetary constraints, the Committee
recommends a reduction of $383,000 in the request.
--Cooperation with State of Hawaii.--On May 14, 1996,
approximately 900 barrels of heavy crude oil spilled
into the Waiau freshwater tributary and then into Pearl
Harbor in the State of Hawaii. To date, in excess of
750 barrels have been recovered through the assistance
of the U.S. Coast Guard. The Office of Pipeline Safety
is without a presence in Hawaii, and as such, there is
no local office to ensure pipeline maintenance,
operation, and inspection. The need for ongoing Federal
monitoring and assistance is critical, and may aid in
averting future spills. The Committee is pleased with
the level of assistance the Office of Pipeline Safety
is providing State officials which may result in the
establishment of a Hawaii-based office and the
solidification of a Federal-State partnership.
Information systems.--Due to budgetary considerations, the
Committee provides $1,200,000 for information systems, the same
amount provided in fiscal year 1996. This program has grown
significantly in the last 3 years, going from $402,000 in
fiscal year 1994 to $1,200,000 in fiscal year 1996. Further
increases are not merited at this time.
Nondestructive evaluation.--The Committee recommends
$900,000, as requested in the budget, for NDE technology
development. Even though OPS has an unobligated balance of
$1,700,000 for this project, current agency plans anticipate
expending last year's appropriation by the end of this fiscal
year. The requested amount is necessary to accelerate research
in this area and to verify inspection technologies under
pressurized pipeline conditions. This research will evaluate
inspection robots to determine their use in detecting pipeline
cracking and corrosion. Successful completion of this activity
will greatly improve the ability to detect pipeline defects and
significantly lower the detection cost. RSPA has signed a
memorandum of understanding with the Gas Research Institute
[GRI] on this project and has developed a detailed workplan.
National Technical Information Service.--The Committee is
concerned that OPS has failed to enter many of the reports and
documents resulting from its research into the National
Technical Information System [NTIS]. These documents are in the
public domain and should be widely disseminated to be of
maximum benefit. The Committee directs the Associate
Administrator for Pipeline Safety to ensure that OPS promptly
enters such reports and documents into the NTIS.
Pipeline grant program.--The Committee recommends
$12,000,000 for the natural gas and hazardous liquid pipeline
safety grants.
One-call notification.--The Committee's recommendation
includes $1,000,000 for the establishment and development of
one-call notification systems through one-call grants. 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 concurs with the House bill language which
directs the Office of Pipeline Safety to use up to $1,000,000
from their reserve fund for this program. The effect of this
approach is that more funding is available for State grants, a
program which in the past had been used to pay for the one-call
notification activity.
OPS indicated that only $40,000 in fiscal year 1995 and
$30,000 in fiscal year 1996 were used for enforcement
activities related to one-call regulations and laws. According
to OPS, only five States use siguificant one-call enforcement
mechanisms. Because it is essential that excavators and other
third-parties use one-call systems, the Committee believes that
a more balanced use of grant funds, one that combines
incentives to improve education as well as enforcement
strategies, would be useful.
Risk management grants.--The Committee's recommendation
includes $500,000 for the establishment of risk management
grants.
Pipeline Safety
(Oilspill Liability Trust Fund)
Appropriations, 1996.................................... $2,698,000
Budget estimate, 1997................................... 2,528,000
House allowance......................................... 2,528,000
Committee recommendation
2,528,000
The Committee recommends $2,528,000 to be derived from the
oilspill liability trust fund for implementation of the Office
of Pipeline Safety [OPS] responsibilities under the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 [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.
Emergency Preparedness Grants
(Emergency Preparedness Fund)
Appropriations, 1996.................................... $400,000
(Limitation)........................................ 8,890,000
Budget estimate, 1997................................... 200,000
(Limitation)........................................................
House allowance......................................... 200,000
(Limitation)........................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 200,000
(Limitation)........................................................
The Committee recommends $200,000 for the training
curriculum activities authorized under existing law.
The Hazardous Materials Uniform Safety Act of 1990 requires
RSPA to: (1) develop and implement a reimbursable emergency
preparedness grants program; (2) monitor public sector
emergency response training and planning and provide technical
assistance to States, political subdivisions, and Indian
tribes; and (3) develop and update periodically a national
training curriculum for emergency responders. These activities
are financed by receipts received from the hazardous materials
shipper and carrier registration fees, which are placed in the
emergency preparedness fund. RSPA estimates that receipts in
fiscal year 1997 will be essentially the same as the actual
fiscal year 1995 receipts, which were $6,873,000.
The administration had requested that the appropriations
bill not include a limitation on obligations, a limitation
which had been carried in previous bills. The reason RSPA made
this request is that they are estimating that the emergency
preparedness fund will be slightly larger than the expected
$6,873,000 in receipts, and they are expecting to obligate all
available resources within the fund.
The House concurred with the administration's request, and
did not impose an obligation limitation for the emergency
preparedness grants program. By removing this limitation, RSPA
will be able to obligate any carryover balances and recoveries
from prior years, which previous limitations had prohibited.
The Committee is recommending the administration requested
language, and has imposed no obligation ceiling on the program.
The following table is for illustrative purposes only, based on
RSPA's estimates for fiscal year 1997 activity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
1996 enacted 1997 budget House Committee
\1\ estimate \2\ allowance \1\ recommendation \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grants...................................... $4,933,000 $5,782,000 $5,782,000 $5,782,000
Technical assistance........................ 400,000 300,000 300,000 300,000
Administrative costs........................ 431,000 300,000 300,000 300,000
Emergency response guidebook................ 700,000 300,000 300,000 300,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. 6,464,000 6,682,000 6,682,000 6,682,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The obligation limitation for fiscal year 1996 was for up to $8,890,000.
\2\ Estimated levels only.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriations, 1996.................................... \1\ $40,238,000
Budget estimate, 1997................................... 39,771,000
House allowance......................................... 39,450,000
Committee recommendation................................ 39,700,000
\1\ Does not includes reductions pursuant to sections 327, 335, and 349
of Public Law 104-50 and section 31002 of Public Law 104-134.
The Inspector General Act of 1978 established the Office of
Inspector General [OIG] as an independent and objective
organization, with a mission to: (1) conduct and supervise
audits and investigations relating to the programs and
operations of the Department; (2) provide leadership and
recommend policies designed to promote economy, efficiency, and
effectiveness in the administration of programs and operations;
(3) prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse; (4) keep the
Secretary and Congress currently informed regarding problems
and deficiencies; and (5) coordinate and recommend policies
which promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness and which
help prevent fraud, waste, and abuse for activities involving
the Department and other agencies and entities.
OIG is divided into three major functional units: Office of
Assistant Inspector General for Auditing, Office of Assistant
Inspector General for Inspections and Evaluations, and Office
of Assistant Inspector General for Investigations. All three
units are supported by headquarters and regional staff.
The Committee recommends $39,700,000, which is $250,000
above the House allowance.
The House included in bill language a prohibition against
the use of any funds to conduct contract audits. Given that
nearly $2,000,000 of the inspector general's fiscal year 1997
request was based on contracting for audits, the House bill
language results in an increase to the OIG base while necessary
contract audits would be paid from each agency's ``Operating
expense'' account. The Committee recommends bill language
limiting contract audit funds of the inspector general to
$1,900,000.
BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS
(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)
Appropriations, 1996.................................... $2,200,000
(By transfer, highway trust fund)................... (20,000,000)
Budget estimate, 1997................................... 3,100,000
(By transfer, highway trust fund)................... (25,000,000)
House allowance.........................................................
(By transfer, highway trust fund)................... (25,000,000)
Committee recommendation................................................
(By transfer, highway trust fund)
(25,000,000)
The Bureau of Transportation Statistics [BTS] was
established in section 6006 of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA], to compile, analyze, and
make accessible information on the Nation's transportation
systems, collect information on intermodal transportation, and
enhance the quality and effectiveness of the statistical
programs of the Department of Transportation. Financing of BTS
operations is authorized as contract authority out of the
highway trust fund, by transfer from the Federal-aid highways
program, and is subject to the obligations limitation on that
program. For fiscal year 1997, a funding level of $25,000,000
is authorized for BTS programs. BTS offices include the
Director, Statistical Programs and Services, Transportation
Studies, and the Office of Aviation Information [OAI]. In
addition, effective January 1, 1996, the responsibility to
collect motor carrier financial data was transferred to the BTS
after the sunset of the Interstate Commerce Commission.
In Public Law 104-50, the Office of Aviation Information
was transferred from the Research and Special Programs
Administration and the fiscal year 1996 appropriation of
$2,200,000 went directly to the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics as a new account. The Office of Aviation Information
collects and compiles financial and traffic (passenger and
cargo) data. This information provides the Government with
uniform and comprehensive economic and market data on
individual airline operations. This program includes a small
field office located in Anchorage, AK, which provides consumers
and the Government with airline data related to essential air
service and the intra-Alaskan mail rate program.
For 1997, the administration is requesting an appropriation
of $3,100,000 from the airport and airway trust fund for the
OAI, a 41-percent increase above the fiscal year 1996 enacted
level. The majority of this increase is associated with
contract costs and computer equipment to be used in developing
a software program and data processing system to directly
access origin and destination data from airlines' computer
reservation systems, for both domestic and international
flights. The Committee lauds the OAI's efforts to improve and
upgrade the 25-year-old airline data retrieval system. The
statistical aviation data compiled by OAI includes: airline
passenger traffic statistics, ontime performance data by
carrier, financial performance and certification data, fuel
purchase and consumption, and other business and consumer
directed statistics. These statistics are vitally important to
the Federal Government and the aviation industry. In some
cases, it is statutorily required that these statistics be used
by the Federal Aviation Administration and the Office of the
Secretary of Transportation in allocation of trust funds,
aviation bilateral negotiations, and other Federal
transportation policy decisionmaking.
Offsetting collections.--The Committee has deleted House
bill language requiring that all airline statistics activities
be offset by user fees charged for those activities. In
calendar year 1995, Office of Aviation Information data sales
totaled only $177,000. Though the Committee believes that these
offsetting costs should be maximized to the extent possible
(and holds the same belief concerning the sales of all BTS-
generated data products), it is unrealistic to expect the OAI
to completely offset its operating costs through data sales and
user fees in fiscal year 1997. However, the Committee agrees
with the House assertion that BTS contract authority funds
could be made available for the compilation of aviation
statistics, and has, therefore, included a provision making up
to $3,100,000 of BTS's ISTEA contract authority available for
OAI, and has not provided either airport and airways trust
funds or general funds to finance the operations of the Office
of Aviation Information. Two ways that BTS can decrease
expenditures in order to more readily absorb the costs of OAI
are more efficient collection of funds from agency reimbursable
agreements and tightening staff travel.
BTS worldwide web site/National Transportation Library.--In
order to promote the private sector development of magnetic
levitation (maglev) technologies, and recognizing the wealth of
information previously collected by Government and industry on
maglev technology, the Committee directs the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics to collect statistical and other
relevant information regarding the application of maglev
technologies and to make available such information to the
public by means of the National Transportation Library, part of
BTS's dedicated worldwide web site accessible via the internet.
The Committee expects that the Bureau will utilize the
expertise and existing data collections of the High-Speed Rail/
Maglev Association Foundation in collecting and reviewing such
information.
General provisions.--The Committee has not included the
provision requested by the administration which gives Bureau of
Transportation Statistics the authority to enter into grants
and cooperative agreements with other agencies, institutions,
and individuals to collect data on the impact of natural
disasters on transportation systems. The House bill did not
contain this provision. Since BTS is absorbing new additional
costs for OAI activities and motor carrier data collection, the
expenditure of up to 5 percent of the agency's resources could
potentially limit the allocation of funds to ongoing data and
analysis programs. The Committee believes that BTS should
request this natural disaster authorization in the next ISTEA,
which is due for reauthorization in 1997.
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriations, 1996.................................... \1\ $8,421,000
Budget estimate, 1997................................... \2\ 3,000,000
House allowance......................................... 12,344,000
Committee recommendation................................ 12,344,000
\1\ Appropriated in section 342 of Public Law 104-50 for the successor
to the Interstate Commerce Commission.
\2\ Represents $15,344,000 in user fees of which a maximum of $3,000,000
would become available as an appropriation and subsequently be reduced
as offsetting collections are received.
The Surface Transportation Board was created on January 1,
1996, by Public Law 104-88, the ICC Termination Act of 1995.
Consistent with the continued trend toward less regulation of
the surface transportation industry, the act abolished the ICC,
eliminated certain functions that had previously been
implemented by the ICC, transferred core rail and certain other
functions to the Board, and transferred motor licensing and
certain other motor functions to the FHWA. The Board is
specifically responsible for the regulation of the rail and
pipeline industries and certain nonlicensing regulation of
motor carriers and water carriers. Moreover, the Board, through
its exemption authority, is able to promote deregulation
administratively on a case-by-case basis. Rail reforms made by
the Staggers Rail Act of 1980 also have been continued.
The fiscal year 1997 program request is $15,344,000 to
expand current Board staffing to meet projected one-time
workload increases imposed by the act as well as ongoing
workload demands. Under the administration's proposal this
amount would be derived solely from user fees collected
pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 9701 from the beneficiaries of the
Board's activities. However, the Committee agrees with the
House that fully fee financing the ICC successor is not a
viable option for fiscal year 1997. Such a proposal would
require enactment of legislation and promulgation of new rules
that are unlikely to be in place in time to ensure undisrupted
funding for the Board.
The Committee has provided $12,344,000 for activities of
the Board, including statutory liability for severance
payments. This amount will be augmented by the collection of
user fees as provided under current law. The Board has informed
the Committee that it anticipates collecting up to $3,000,000
from these funds. Bill language has been included to assure
that fees received in excess of $3,000,000 shall remain
available to the Board but shall not be available for
obligation until October 1, 1997.
TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES
ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriations, 1996.................................... $3,500,000
Budget estimate, 1997................................... 3,540,000
House allowance......................................... 3,540,000
Committee recommendation
3,540,000
The Committee recommends $3,540,000 for the operations of
the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board,
the same funding level requested by the administration and
provided by the House.
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.
Telecommunications Act of 1996.--The Committee wishes to
recognize the Access Board for undertaking and absorbing the
costs associated with developing accessibility guidelines for
telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment,
as required by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Issuance of
these guidelines is required by August 8, 1997, an 18-month
deadline. This is an unusually compressed timeframe during
which the Board, working in conjunction with the Federal
Communications Commission, will establish an advisory
committee, publish a notice of proposed rulemaking, solicit
public input, and publish final guidelines.
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriations, 1996.................................... $38,774,000
Budget estimate, 1997................................... 42,407,000
House allowance......................................... 42,407,000
Committee recommendation
42,407,000
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 $42,407,000, which is
$3,633,000 above the fiscal year 1996 level. This funding is
the same as the administration's amended budget request and the
same as provided by the House. The amount recommended provides
for a full-time equivalent [FTE] employment level of 370, an
increase of 20 FTE's over fiscal year 1996. The following table
incorporates the NTSB's internal realignment of administrative
functions and provides for salaries and expenses to be
distributed as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget
Staff (FTE) authority
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Policy and direction................... 45 $5,694,000
Aviation safety........................ 129 14,696,000
Surface transportation safety.......... 99 11,207,000
Research and engineering............... 56 6,618,000
Administration......................... 31 2,831,000
Administrative law judges.............. 10 1,361,000
--------------------------------
Total............................ 370 42,407,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION
Panama Canal Revolving Fund
(limitation on administrative expenses)
Limitation, 1996.......................................\1\ ($52,741,000)
Budget estimate, 1997...................................................
House allowance.........................................................
Committee recommendation................................................
\1\ Includes $2,000,000 supplemental 1996 funds in Public Law 104-134,
the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriation Act of 1996.
The Committee concurs with the administration's request and
House action which deletes the limitation on administrative
expenses of the Panama Canal Commission.
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.
Under the Department of Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106), the Panama Canal
Commission has been reconstituted as a United States Government
corporation. Since the Panama Canal Commission undergoes
reauthorization annually, and generates all its own revenues,
there is no further need to carry appropriations language
limiting the administrative expenses or operating and capital
expenses of the Commission. However, Public Law 104-106 does
not exempt the agency from oversight by Congress, and the
Committee expects to continue its annual review of the
Commission's budget submittal until the transfer of control
over the Panama Canal to the Government of Panama takes effect
on December 31, 1999.
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 1997 as approved by the House in
H.R. 3675, with the following deletions or changes. Other
changes are explained more fully under the account or agency
affected by the general provision.
changes, deletions/replacements, new sections
title iii
Sec. 310(c)(3). Adds language requested by the
administration which would allow for a takedown from the
Federal-aid Highways program for specific authorized
activities, including section 140(b) of 23 U.S.C., section
1012(b) of Public Law 102-240, section 104(I) of title 23,
section 1069(y) of Public Law 102-240; and section 130(d) of
the Symms National Recreational Trails Act of 1991.
Sec. 310(g). Includes language requested by the
administration which would allow for an increase in the
administrative takedown from the existing 3\3/4\ percent to
4\3/4\ percent.
Sec. 323. 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. 324. Adds a proviso to House language which directs
the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to
provide in writing that safety conditions warrant the
expenditure of funds for a sixth runway at the new Denver
International Airport.
Sec. 325. Deletes House language which requires the Bureau
of Transportation Statistics to increase its fees to $3,100,000
to cover the costs of the Office of Aviation Statistics. The
Committee provides the funding through a drawdown of existing
Bureau of Transportation Statistics funds.
Sec. 330. Deletes the House provision that prohibits the
use of funds for improvements to the Miller Highway in New
York.
Sec. 331. Changes the cap on advisory committees at the
Department of Transportation from $850,000 to $1,050,000.
Sec. 333. Deletes the House provision which prohibits funds
other than that appropriated to pay for the activities of the
Surface Transportation Board. The Committee has added a
provision which adds a new section (m) to section 24902 of
title 49, U.S.C., relating to Amtrak operations on the
Northeast corridor.
Sec. 335. Adds a provision regarding the full funding grant
agreement for the Westside light rail project, Portland, OR.
Sec. 337. Deletes the House provision regarding the use of
funding for buses in the State of Michigan.
Sec. 338. Deletes the House provision which provides
funding for a national civil aviation review commission. The
Committee has added a new section which allows transit capital
funds previously provided to Kauai, HI, to be used for
operating expenses.
Sec. 339. Deletes the House provision which allowed for the
transfer of a lighthouse at Montauk, NY. The Committee has
added a new proviso which clarifies the status of an interstate
maintenance project and a Federal lands project funded with
discretionary funds.
Sec. 341. Adds a new proviso that allows the Secretary of
Transportation to collect fees from users of fitness centers
operated by and for the Department.
Sec. 342. Prohibits the use of any funds by the National
Transportation Safety Board to study allowing individuals 60
years of age to pilot commercial aircraft.
Sec. 343. Limits the amount of bonuses and cash awards for
the employees of the Department of Transportation to no more
than $25,448,300.
Sec. 344. Adds language exempting the National Passenger
Railroad Corporation from State or local laws relating to
abandoned or unclaimed ticket refunds.
Sec. 345. Directs FAA to provide weather observers at Dutch
Harbor, AK.
Sec. 346. Adds a new proviso which allows the Secretary of
Transportation to offer separation incentives for employees of
the U.S. Coast Guard, Research and Special Programs
Administration, Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation,
and Office of the Secretary.
title iv
Sec. 401. Deletes the House provision which prohibits the
use of certain trucks on U.S. Route 15 in Virginia.
Sec. 402. Deletes the House provision which allows for
funds in Mobile, AL, to be used for additional purposes.
Sec. 403. Deletes the House provision regarding a transfer
of funds which expands the use of funds for projects in St.
Thomas, VI. The Committee has added a new sections which allows
funds previously appropriated for certain highway-rail grade
crossing in Mineola, NY, to be used on other highway-rail grade
crossing in Nassau and Suffolk County, NY.
Sec. 405. Deletes the House provision which expands the
definition of the use of highway funds in Petoskey, MI.
Sec. 406. The Committee adds a new provision which allows
funds originally intended for a study in Whiting, IN, to be
used for a congestion relief project in Merrillville, IN.
title v
Sec. 501. Deletes the House provision which places a limit
on new loan guarantees for certain railroad projects.
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.''
Federal Aviation Administration:
Operations.......................................... 4,899,957,000
Facilities and equipment............................ 1,788,700,000
Research, engineering, and development.............. 187,000,000
Grants-in-aid for airports.......................... 1,460,000,000
Federal Railroad Administration:
Grants to the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation....................................... 592,000,000
Northeast Corridor Improvement Program.............. 200,000,000
Rhode Island rail development....................... 10,000,000
Alaska railroad rehabilitation...................... 10,000,000
High-speed rail trainsets and facilities............ 80,000,000
Railroad research and development................... 20,000,000
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
Operations and research............................. 133,195,000
Research and Special Programs Administration: Pipeline
safety.............................................. 28,750,000
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. Bond
Mr. Gorton
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Mack
Mr. Burns
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Jeffords
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Campbell
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 3035(b) of Public Law 102-240 is amended as
follows:
(b) Westside Light Rail Project.--No later than April 30,
1992, the Secretary shall negotiate and sign a multiyear grant
agreement with the Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation
District of Oregon which includes [$515,000,000] $555,000,000
from funds made available under section 3(k)(1)(B) of the
Federal Transit Act at the Federal share contained in House
Report 101-584 to carry out the construction of the locally
preferred alternative for the Westside Light Rail Project,
including system related costs, set forth in Public Law 101-516
and as defined in House Report 101-584. Such agreement shall
also provide for the completion of alternatives analysis, the
final Environmental Impact Analysis, and preliminary
engineering for the Hillsboro extension to the Westside Project
as set forth in Public Law 101-516.
Section 24902 of title 49, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(m) Applicable Procedures.--No State or local
building, zoning, subdivision, or similar or related
law, nor any other State or local law from which a
project would be exempt if undertaken by the Federal
Government or an agency thereof within a Federal enclave
wherein Federal jurisdiction is exclusive, including
without limitation with respect to all such laws
referenced herein above requirements for permits,
actions, approvals or filings, shall apply in connection
with the construction, ownership, use, operation,
financing, leasing, conveying, mortgaging or enforcing a
mortgage of (i) any improvement undertaken by or for the
benefit of Amtrak as part of, or in furtherance of, the
Northeast Corridor Improvement Project (including
without limitation maintenance, service, inspection or
similar facilities acquired, constructed or used for
high speed trainsets) or chapter 241, 243, or 247 of
this title or (ii) any land (and right, title or
interest created with respect thereto) on which such
improvement is located and adjoining, surrounding or any
related land. These exemptions shall remain in effect
and be applicable with respect to such land and
improvements for the benefit of any mortgagee before,
upon and after coming into possession of such
improvements or land, any third party purchasers thereof
in foreclosure (or through a deed in lieu of
foreclosure), and their respective successors and
assigns, in each case to the extent the land or
improvements are used, or held for use, for railroad
purposes or purposes accessory thereto. This subsection
(m) shall not apply to any improvement or related land
unless Amtrak receives a Federal operating subsidy in
the fiscal year in which Amtrak commits to or initiates
such improvement.''
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 1997: Subcommittee on Transportation and
Related Agencies:
Defense discretionary................................... ........... ........... 37 \1\ 37
Nondefense discretionary................................ 11,950 11,950 35,416 35,416
Violent crime reduction fund............................ ........... ........... ........... ...........
Mandatory............................................... 605 605 602 602
Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation:
1997.................................................... ........... ........... ........... \2\ 12,270
1998.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 13,502
1999.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 5,024
2000.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 1,830
2001 and future year.................................... ........... ........... ........... 3,033
Financial assistance to State and local governments for 1997
in bill.................................................... NA 858 NA 3,860
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 1996 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Committee recommendation compared with (+ or -)
Item 1996 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee -----------------------------------------------------------
recommendation 1996 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
Salaries and expenses............................... $56,189,000 $55,376,000 $53,816,000 $53,376,000 -$2,813,000 -$2,000,000 -$440,000
Office of Civil Rights.............................. 6,554,000 5,574,000 5,574,000 5,574,000 -980,000 .................. ..................
Transportation planning, research, and development.. 8,220,000 7,919,000 3,000,000 4,158,000 -4,062,000 -3,761,000 +1,158,000
Transportation Administrative Service Center........ (103,149,000) .................. (124,812,000) (124,812,000) (+21,663,000) (+124,812,000) ..................
Payments to air carriers (Airport and Airway Trust
Fund):
(Liquidation of contract authorization)......... (22,600,000) (21,922,000) (10,000,000) (25,900,000) (+3,300,000) (+3,978,000) (+15,900,000)
(Limitation on obligations)..................... (22,600,000) (21,922,000) (10,000,000) (25,900,000) (+3,300,000) (+3,978,000) (+15,900,000)
Rescission of contract authority................ (-16,000,000) (-16,678,000) (-28,600,000) (-12,700,000) (+3,300,000) (+3,978,000) (+15,900,000)
Rescission...................................... (-6,786,971) (-1,133,373) (-1,133,000) (-1,133,000) (+5,653,971) (+373) ..................
Rental payments..................................... 135,200,000 137,581,000 127,447,000 132,500,000 -2,700,000 -5,081,000 +5,053,000
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 2,900,000 2,900,000 .................. .................. ..................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Office of the Secretary................ 210,963,000 211,250,000 194,637,000 200,408,000 -10,555,000 -10,842,000 +5,771,000
(Limitations on obligations).............. (22,600,000) (21,922,000) (10,000,000) (25,900,000) (+3,300,000) (+3,978,000) (+15,900,000)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources............... (233,563,000) (233,172,000) (204,637,000) (226,308,000) (-7,255,000) (-6,864,000) (+21,671,000)
===========================================================================================================================================
Coast Guard
Operating expenses.................................. 2,278,991,000 2,519,350,000 2,609,100,000 2,331,350,000 +52,359,000 -188,000,000 -277,750,000
Defense function (050).......................... .................. 118,500,000 .................. .................. .................. -118,500,000 ..................
(Transfer from DOD)............................. (300,000,000) .................. .................. (300,000,000) .................. (+300,000,000) (+300,000,000)
Acquisition, construction, and improvements:
Offsetting collections.......................... .................. -20,000,000 -20,000,000 .................. .................. +20,000,000 +20,000,000
Vessels......................................... 167,600,000 237,000,000 205,600,000 227,960,000 +60,360,000 -9,040,000 +22,360,000
Aircraft........................................ 12,000,000 21,400,000 18,300,000 19,040,000 +7,040,000 -2,360,000 +740,000
Other equipment................................. 49,200,000 46,700,000 39,900,000 46,200,000 -3,000,000 -500,000 +6,300,000
Shore facilities and aids to navigation
facilities..................................... 88,875,000 59,500,000 47,950,000 52,900,000 -35,975,000 -6,600,000 +4,950,000
Personnel and related support................... 44,700,000 47,000,000 46,250,000 47,000,000 +2,300,000 .................. +750,000
Rescission, fiscal year 1995.................... .................. .................. (-355,000) .................. .................. .................. (+355,000)
Rescission, fiscal year 1996.................... .................. .................. (-3,400,000) .................. .................. .................. (+3,400,000)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, AC&I................................ 362,375,000 391,600,000 334,245,000 393,100,000 +30,725,000 +1,500,000 +58,855,000
===========================================================================================================================================
Environmental compliance and restoration............ 21,000,000 25,000,000 21,000,000 23,000,000 +2,000,000 -2,000,000 +2,000,000
Port Safety Development............................. 15,000,000 .................. .................. 5,000,000 -10,000,000 +5,000,000 +5,000,000
Alteration of bridges............................... 16,000,000 2,000,000 16,000,000 10,000,000 -6,000,000 +8,000,000 -6,000,000
Retired pay......................................... 582,022,000 608,084,000 608,084,000 608,084,000 +26,062,000 .................. ..................
Reserve training.................................... 62,000,000 65,890,000 65,890,000 65,890,000 +3,890,000 .................. ..................
Research, development, test, and evaluation......... 18,000,000 20,300,000 19,000,000 19,550,000 +1,550,000 -750,000 +550,000
Boat safety (Aquatic Resources Trust Fund).......... 20,000,000 .................. 35,000,000 10,000,000 -10,000,000 +10,000,000 -25,000,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Coast Guard............................ 3,375,388,000 3,750,724,000 3,708,319,000 3,465,974,000 +90,586,000 -284,750,000 -242,345,000
===========================================================================================================================================
Federal Aviation Administration
Operations.......................................... 4,645,712,000 4,918,269,000 4,900,000,000 4,899,957,000 +254,245,000 -18,312,000 -43,000
Offsetting Collections.......................... .................. -150,000,000 -30,000,000 -75,000,000 -75,000,000 +75,000,000 -45,000,000
Facilities and equipment (Airport and Airway Trust
Fund).............................................. 1,934,883,000 1,788,700,000 1,800,000,000 1,788,700,000 -146,183,000 .................. -11,300,000
Rescission...................................... (-60,000,000) .................. .................. .................. (+60,000,000) .................. ..................
Research, engineering, and development (Airport and
Airway Trust Fund)................................. 185,698,000 195,700,000 185,000,000 187,000,000 +1,302,000 -8,700,000 +2,000,000
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) (1,350,000,000) (1,300,000,000) (1,460,000,000) (+10,000,000) (+110,000,000) (+160,000,000)
Rescission of contract authority................ (-664,000,000) .................. .................. .................. (+664,000,000) .................. ..................
Aircraft purchase loan guarantee program (indefinite
borrowing authority)............................... 50,000 .................. .................. .................. -50,000 .................. ..................
(Limitation on borrowing authority)............. (1,600,000) .................. .................. .................. (-1,600,000) .................. ..................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Aviation Administration........ 6,766,343,000 6,752,669,000 6,855,000,000 6,800,657,000 +34,314,000 +47,988,000 -54,343,000
(Limitations on obligations).............. (1,450,000,000) (1,350,000,000) (1,300,000,000) (1,460,000,000) (+10,000,000) (+110,000,000) (+160,000,000)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources............... (8,216,343,000) (8,102,669,000) (8,155,000,000) (8,260,657,000) (+44,314,000) (+157,988,000) (+105,657,000)
===========================================================================================================================================
Federal Highway Administration
Limitation on general operating expenses............ (509,660,000) (652,905,000) (510,981,000) (534,846,000) (+25,186,000) (-118,059,000) (+23,865,000)
Highway-related safety grants (Highway Trust Fund):
(Liquidation of contract authorization)......... (11,000,000) (2,049,000) (2,049,000) (2,049,000) (-8,951,000) .................. ..................
(Limitation on obligations)..................... (11,000,000) .................. .................. .................. (-11,000,000) .................. ..................
Rescission of contract authority................ (-9,000,000) .................. .................. .................. (+9,000,000) .................. ..................
Federal-aid highways (Highway Trust Fund):
(Limitation on obligations)..................... (17,550,000,000) (17,714,000,000) (17,550,000,000) (17,650,000,000) (+100,000,000) (-64,000,000) (+100,000,000)
(Exempt obligations) (sec. 310)................. (2,331,507,000) (1,314,802,000) (2,055,000,000) (2,055,000,000) (-276,507,000) (+740,198,000) ..................
(Liquidation of contract authorization)......... (19,200,000,000) (19,800,000,000) (19,800,000,000) (19,800,000,000) (+600,000,000) .................. ..................
Emergency appropriations........................ (300,000,000) .................. .................. .................. (-300,000,000) .................. ..................
Right-of-way revolving funds (Highway Trust Fund)... .................. .................. .................. 8,000,000 +8,000,000 +8,000,000 +8,000,000
Motor carrier safety grants (Highway Trust Fund):
(Liquidation of contract authorization)......... (68,000,000) (74,000,000) (74,000,000) (74,000,000) (+6,000,000) .................. ..................
(Limitation on obligations)..................... (77,225,000) (85,000,000) (77,425,000) (79,000,000) (+1,775,000) (-6,000,000) (+1,575,000)
Rescission of contract authority................ (-33,000,000) .................. .................. .................. (+33,000,000) .................. ..................
Alameda corridor project loan program............... .................. 58,680,000 .................. .................. .................. -58,680,000 ..................
Alameda corridor project loan limitation............ .................. (400,000,000) .................. .................. .................. (-400,000,000) ..................
State infrastructure banks (Highway Trust Fund)..... .................. 250,000,000 .................. 250,000,000 +250,000,000 .................. +250,000,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Highway Administration......... .................. 308,680,000 .................. 258,000,000 +258,000,000 -50,680,000 +258,000,000
(Limitations on obligations).............. (17,638,225,000) (17,799,000,000) (17,627,425,000) (17,729,000,000) (+90,775,000) (-70,000,000) (+101,575,000)
(Exempt obligations)...................... (2,331,507,000) (1,314,802,000) (2,055,000,000) (2,055,000,000) (-276,507,000) (+740,198,000) ..................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources............... (19,969,732,000) (19,422,482,000) (19,682,425,000) (20,042,000,000) (+72,268,000) (+619,518,000) (+359,575,000)
===========================================================================================================================================
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Operations and research............................. 73,316,570 98,976,000 81,895,000 80,000,000 +6,683,430 -18,976,000 -1,895,000
Operations and research (Highway Trust Fund)........ 51,884,430 59,537,000 50,377,000 53,195,000 +1,310,570 -6,342,000 +2,818,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operations and research............. 125,201,000 158,513,000 132,272,000 133,195,000 +7,994,000 -25,318,000 +923,000
Highway traffic safety grants (Highway Trust Fund):
(Liquidation of contract authorization)......... (155,100,000) (191,000,000) (167,100,000) (169,100,000) (+14,000,000) (-21,900,000) (+2,000,000)
State and community highway safety grants (Sec.
402) (limitation on obligations)............... (127,700,000) (151,200,000) (127,700,000) (129,700,000) (+2,000,000) (-21,500,000) (+2,000,000)
National Driver Register (Sec. 402) (limitation
on obligations)................................ (2,400,000) (2,400,000) (2,400,000) (2,400,000) .................. .................. ..................
Highway safety grants (Sec. 1003(a)(7))
(limitation on obligations).................... .................. (15,000,000) (11,000,000) (12,000,000) (+12,000,000) (-3,000,000) (+1,000,000)
Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures
programs (Sec. 410) (limitation on obligations) (25,000,000) (25,000,000) (26,000,000) (25,000,000) .................. .................. (-1,000,000)
Rescission of contract authority................ (-56,000,000) .................. .................. .................. (+56,000,000) .................. ..................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration............................... 125,201,000 158,513,000 132,272,000 133,195,000 +7,994,000 -25,318,000 +923,000
(Limitations on obligations).............. (155,100,000) (193,600,000) (167,100,000) (169,100,000) (+14,000,000) (-24,500,000) (+2,000,000)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources............... (280,301,000) (352,113,000) (299,372,000) (302,295,000) (+21,994,000) (-49,818,000) (+2,923,000)
===========================================================================================================================================
Federal Railroad Administration
Office of the Administrator......................... 14,018,000 16,883,000 16,469,000 16,739,000 +2,721,000 -144,000 +270,000
Railroad safety..................................... 49,919,000 51,864,000 51,407,000 51,407,000 +1,488,000 -457,000 ..................
Railroad research and development................... 24,550,000 24,565,000 20,341,000 20,000,000 -4,550,000 -4,565,000 -341,000
Northeast corridor improvement program.............. 115,000,000 200,000,000 .................. 200,000,000 +85,000,000 .................. +200,000,000
High-speed rail trainsets and facilities............ .................. 80,000,000 80,000,000 80,000,000 +80,000,000 .................. ..................
Next generation high speed rail..................... 19,205,000 26,525,000 19,757,000 26,525,000 +7,320,000 .................. +6,768,000
Trust fund share of next generation high-speed rail
(Highway Trust Fund):
(Liquidation of contract authorization)......... (7,118,000) (2,855,000) (2,855,000) (2,855,000) (-4,263,000) .................. ..................
(Limitation on obligations)..................... (5,000,000) .................. .................. .................. (-5,000,000) .................. ..................
Alaska Railroad rehabilitation...................... 10,000,000 .................. .................. 10,000,000 .................. +10,000,000 +10,000,000
Rhode Island Rail Development....................... 1,000,000 10,000,000 4,000,000 10,000,000 +9,000,000 .................. +6,000,000
Direct loan financing program....................... .................. .................. 58,680,000 .................. .................. .................. -58,680,000
Direct loan financing program limitation............ .................. .................. (400,000,000) .................. .................. .................. (-400,000,000)
Grants to the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation:
Operations...................................... 305,000,000 342,000,000 342,000,000 342,000,000 +37,000,000 .................. ..................
Transition costs................................ 100,000,000 .................. .................. .................. -100,000,000 .................. ..................
Capital......................................... 230,000,000 296,500,000 120,000,000 250,000,000 +20,000,000 -46,500,000 +130,000,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Grants to the National Railroad
Passenger Corporation........................ 635,000,000 638,500,000 462,000,000 592,000,000 -43,000,000 -46,500,000 +130,000,000
===========================================================================================================================================
Total, Federal Railroad Administration........ 868,692,000 1,048,337,000 712,654,000 1,006,671,000 +137,979,000 -41,666,000 +294,017,000
(Limitations on obligations).............. (5,000,000) .................. .................. .................. (-5,000,000) .................. ..................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources............... (873,692,000) (1,048,337,000) (712,654,000) (1,006,671,000) (+132,979,000) (-41,666,000) (+294,017,000)
===========================================================================================================================================
Federal Transit Administration
Administrative expenses............................. 42,000,000 43,652,000 41,367,000 42,147,000 +147,000 -1,505,000 +780,000
Formula grants...................................... 942,925,000 221,122,000 490,000,000 218,335,000 -724,590,000 -2,787,000 -271,665,000
Formula grants (Highway Trust Fund) (limitation on
obligations)....................................... (1,110,000,000) (1,930,850,000) (1,562,925,000) (1,930,850,000) (+820,850,000) .................. (+367,925,000)
Operating assistance grants..................... (400,000,000) (500,000,000) (400,000,000) (400,000,000) .................. (-100,000,000) ..................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Formula grants...................... (2,052,925,000) (2,151,972,000) (2,052,925,000) (2,149,185,000) (+96,260,000) (-2,787,000) (+96,260,000)
University transportation centers................... 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 .................. .................. ..................
Transit planning and research....................... 85,500,000 85,500,000 85,500,000 85,500,000 .................. .................. ..................
Metropolitan planning........................... (39,500,000) (39,500,000) (39,500,000) (39,500,000) .................. .................. ..................
Rural transit assistance........................ (4,500,000) (4,500,000) (4,500,000) (4,500,000) .................. .................. ..................
Transit cooperative research.................... (8,250,000) (8,250,000) (8,250,000) (8,250,000) .................. .................. ..................
National planning and research.................. (22,000,000) (22,000,000) (22,000,000) (22,000,000) .................. .................. ..................
State planning and research..................... (8,250,000) (8,250,000) (8,250,000) (8,250,000) .................. .................. ..................
National transit institute...................... (3,000,000) (3,000,000) (3,000,000) (3,000,000) .................. .................. ..................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Transit planning and research....... (85,500,000) (85,500,000) (85,500,000) (85,500,000) .................. .................. ..................
Trust fund share of expenses (Highway Trust Fund)
(liquidation of contract authorization)............ (1,120,850,000) (1,920,000,000) (1,920,000,000) (1,920,000,000) (+799,150,000) .................. ..................
Discretionary grants (Highway Trust Fund)
(limitation on obligations):
Fixed guideway modernization.................... (666,000,000) (725,000,000) (666,000,000) (725,000,000) (+59,000,000) .................. (+59,000,000)
Bus and bus-related facilities.................. (333,000,000) (274,000,000) (333,000,000) (375,000,000) (+42,000,000) (+101,000,000) (+42,000,000)
New starts...................................... (666,000,000) (800,000,000) (666,000,000) (800,000,000) (+134,000,000) .................. (+134,000,000)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Discretionary grants................ (1,665,000,000) (1,799,000,000) (1,665,000,000) (1,900,000,000) (+235,000,000) (+101,000,000) (+235,000,000)
Mass transit capital fund (Highway Trust Fund)
(liquidation of contract authorization)............ (2,375,000,000) (2,000,000,000) (2,000,000,000) (2,300,000,000) (-75,000,000) (+300,000,000) (+300,000,000)
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority...... 200,000,000 200,000,000 200,000,000 200,000,000 .................. .................. ..................
Violent crime reduction programs (Violent Crime
Reduction Trust Fund).............................. .................. 10,000,000 .................. .................. .................. -10,000,000 ..................
===========================================================================================================================================
Total, Federal Transit Administration......... 1,276,425,000 566,274,000 822,867,000 551,982,000 -724,443,000 -14,292,000 -270,885,000
(Limitations on obligations).............. (2,775,000,000) (3,729,850,000) (3,227,925,000) (3,830,850,000) (+1,055,850,000) (+101,000,000) (+602,925,000)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources............... (4,051,425,000) (4,296,124,000) (4,050,792,000) (4,382,832,000) (+331,407,000) (+86,708,000) (+332,040,000)
===========================================================================================================================================
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
Operations and maintenance (Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund).............................................. 10,150,000 10,065,000 10,037,000 10,337,000 +187,000 +272,000 +300,000
===========================================================================================================================================
Research and Special Programs Administration
Research and special programs....................... 23,937,000 28,169,000 23,929,000 27,675,000 +3,738,000 -494,000 +3,746,000
Hazardous materials safety...................... (12,650,000) (12,812,000) (12,772,000) (15,572,000) (+2,922,000) (+2,760,000) (+2,800,000)
Emergency transportation........................ (1,022,000) (993,000) (993,000) (993,000) (-29,000) .................. ..................
Research and technology......................... (3,288,000) (7,488,000) (3,323,000) (4,269,000) (+981,000) (-3,219,000) (+946,000)
Program and administrative support.............. (7,388,000) (6,876,000) (6,841,000) (6,841,000) (-547,000) (-35,000) ..................
Accountwide adjustment.......................... (-411,000) .................. .................. .................. (+411,000) .................. ..................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, research and special programs....... (23,937,000) (28,169,000) (23,929,000) (27,675,000) (+3,738,000) (-494,000) (+3,746,000)
Pipeline safety (Pipeline Safety Fund).............. 28,750,000 31,500,000 28,460,000 28,750,000 .................. -2,750,000 +290,000
Pipeline safety (Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund).... 2,698,000 2,528,000 2,528,000 2,528,000 -170,000 .................. ..................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Pipeline safety..................... 31,448,000 34,028,000 30,988,000 31,278,000 -170,000 -2,750,000 +290,000
Emergency preparedness grants:
Emergency preparedness fund..................... 400,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 -200,000 .................. ..................
(Limitation on obligations)..................... (8,890,000) .................. .................. .................. (-8,890,000) .................. ..................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Research and Special Programs
Administration............................... 55,785,000 62,397,000 55,117,000 59,153,000 +3,368,000 -3,244,000 +4,036,000
(Limitations on obligations).............. (8,890,000) .................. .................. .................. (-8,890,000) .................. ..................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources............... (64,675,000) (62,397,000) (55,117,000) (59,153,000) (-5,522,000) (-3,244,000) (+4,036,000)
===========================================================================================================================================
Office of Inspector General
Salaries and expenses............................... 40,238,000 39,771,000 39,450,000 39,700,000 -538,000 -71,000 +250,000
===========================================================================================================================================
Bureau of Transportation Statistics
Salaries and expenses............................... 2,200,000 .................. .................. .................. -2,200,000 .................. ..................
Office of Airline Information (Airport and airway
trust fund)........................................ .................. 3,100,000 .................. .................. .................. -3,100,000 ..................
===========================================================================================================================================
Surface Transportation Board
Salaries and expenses............................... .................. 3,000,000 12,344,000 12,344,000 +12,344,000 +9,344,000 ..................
Offsetting Collections.......................... .................. -3,000,000 .................. .................. .................. +3,000,000 ..................
===========================================================================================================================================
General Provisions
Bureau of Transportation Statistics (transfer from
Federal-aid Highways).............................. (20,000,000) (25,000,000) (25,000,000) (25,000,000) (+5,000,000) .................. ..................
Transportation Administrative Service Center reduc-
tion............................................... -7,500,000 .................. -10,000,000 -10,000,000 -2,500,000 -10,000,000 ..................
DOT field office consolidation (sec. 335)........... -25,000,000 .................. .................. .................. +25,000,000 .................. ..................
ICC transition (sec. 344)........................... 8,421,000 .................. .................. .................. -8,421,000 .................. ..................
===========================================================================================================================================
Total, title I, Dept of Transportation (net).. 11,862,519,029 12,893,968,627 12,502,964,000 12,514,588,000 +652,068,971 -379,380,627 +11,624,000
Appropriations........................ (12,707,306,000) (12,911,780,000) (12,532,697,000) (12,528,421,000) (-178,885,000) (-383,359,000) (-4,276,000)
Rescissions........................... (-844,786,971) (-17,811,373) (-29,733,000) (-13,833,000) (+830,953,971) (+3,978,373) (+15,900,000)
(Limitations on obligations).............. (22,054,815,000) (23,094,372,000) (22,332,450,000) (23,214,850,000) (+1,160,035,000) (+120,478,000) (+822,400,000)
(Exempt obligations)...................... (2,331,507,000) (1,314,802,000) (2,055,000,000) (2,055,000,000) (-276,507,000) (+740,198,000) ..................
===========================================================================================================================================
Total budgetary resources including
(limitations on obligations) and
(exempt obligations)................... (36,248,841,029) (37,303,142,627) (36,890,414,000) (37,784,438,000) (+1,535,596,971) (+481,295,373) (+894,024,000)
===========================================================================================================================================
TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance
Board
Salaries and expenses............................... 3,500,000 3,540,000 3,540,000 3,540,000 +40,000 .................. ..................
===========================================================================================================================================
National Transportation Safety Board
Salaries and expenses............................... 38,774,000 42,407,000 42,407,000 42,407,000 +3,633,000 .................. ..................
Emergency fund...................................... 360,802 .................. .................. .................. -360,802 .................. ..................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, National Transportation Safety Board... 39,134,802 42,407,000 42,407,000 42,407,000 +3,272,198 .................. ..................
===========================================================================================================================================
Interstate Commerce Commission
Salaries and expenses............................... 13,379,000 .................. .................. .................. -13,379,000 .................. ..................
Payments for directed rail service (limitation on
obligations)....................................... (475,000) .................. .................. .................. (-475,000) .................. ..................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Interstate Commerce Commission......... (13,854,000) .................. .................. .................. (-13,854,000) .................. ..................
===========================================================================================================================================
Panama Canal Commission
Panama Canal Revolving Fund: (Limitation on
administrative expenses)........................... (52,741,000) .................. .................. .................. (-52,741,000) .................. ..................
===========================================================================================================================================
Total, title II, Related Agencies............. 56,013,802 45,947,000 45,947,000 45,947,000 -10,066,802 .................. ..................
(Limitation on obligations)............... (475,000) .................. .................. .................. (-475,000) .................. ..................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources............... (56,488,802) (45,947,000) (45,947,000) (45,947,000) (-10,541,802) .................. ..................
===========================================================================================================================================
TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS
General Provision 310............................... .................. (-41,000,000) .................. .................. .................. (+41,000,000) ..................
General Provision 310(f)............................ .................. -306,000,000 .................. .................. .................. +306,000,000 ..................
Sec. 338--National Civil Aviation Review Commission. .................. .................. 2,400,000 .................. .................. .................. -2,400,000
===========================================================================================================================================
Total appropriations (net).................... 11,918,532,831 12,633,915,627 12,551,311,000 12,560,535,000 +642,002,169 -73,380,627 +9,224,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<greek-d>
|
|
