 |
From the House Reports Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
104th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 104-631
_______________________________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL,
1997
_______
June 19, 1996.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______________________________________________________________________
Mr. Wolf, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 3675]
The Committee on Appropriations submits the following
report in explanation of the accompanying bill making
appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997.
INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT
_______________________________________________________________________
Page number
Bill Report
Narrative summary of Committee action...................... 1
2
Program, project, and activity.............................
3
Title I--Department of Transportation:
Office of the Secretary.................... 2
4
Coast Guard................................ 6
13
Federal Aviation Administration............ 11
34
Federal Highway Administration............. 16
65
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration......................... 18
101
Federal Railroad Administration............ 21
113
Federal Transit Administration............. 26
126
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation............................ 34
167
Research and Special Programs
Administration......................... 35
168
Office of Inspector General................ 36
173
Bureau of Transportation Statistics........
174
Surface Transportation Board............... 37
174
Title II--Related Agencies:
Architectural and Transportation Barriers
Compliance Board....................... 37
176
National Transportation Safety Board....... 38
176
Panama Canal Commission....................
178
Title III--General Provisions...................... 38
179
Title IV--Miscellaneous Highway Provisions......... 55
181
House Report Requirements:
Inflationary impact statement..............
181
Rescissions................................
182
Transfers of funds.........................
182
Changes in existing law....................
184
Appropriations not authorized by law...............
189
Comparison with budget resolution..........
189
Five-year projections of outlays...........
190
Financial assistance to state and local
governments............................
190
Tabular summary of the bill................
192
Summary of the Bill
The accompanying bill would provide $12,460,311,000 in new
budget (obligational) authority for the programs of the
Department of Transportation and related agencies, a decrease
of $167,604,627 below the $12,627,915,627 requested in the
budget.
The Committee has also recommended limitations on
obligations for a number of programs that are, for the most
part, financed by multi-year contract authority in legislative
acts. The total of the limitations on obligations for these
programs is $22,422,450,000. This is $367,160,000 above the
levels enacted in fiscal year 1996, and $630,922,000 below the
levels requested in the budget. An additional $2,055,000,000 is
estimated to be obligated for federal-aid highway programs
exempt from the obligation limitation in the bill.
The total recommended obligational authority (new budget
authority, limitations on obligations, and exempt obligations)
amounts to $36,937,761,000. This is $263,755,021 more than
comparable fiscal year 1996 enacted levels, and $58,328,627
less than the budget request.
Major Recommendations
Selected major recommendations in the accompanying bill
are:
(1) A provision providing for total obligations,
including exempt obligations, of $19,605,000,000 for
federal-aid highways;
(2) A provision providing for $1,300,000,000 for
grants-in-aid for airports;
(3) An appropriation of $4,900,000,000 for operations
of the Federal Aviation Administration, an increase of
$254,288,000 above the fiscal year 1996 level,
including funds to provide a net increase of 250
additional air traffic controllers, 100 additional
airline operations inspectors, 54 additional air
worthiness inspectors, 75 additional engineers and
pilots, and 29 additional manufacturing certification
inspectors;
(4) An appropriation of $2,609,100,000 for operating
expenses of the Coast Guard, an increase of $30,109,000
above the fiscal year 1996 level;
(5) An appropriation of $462,000,000 for grants to
the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak),
to cover operating losses and capital expenses, and an
appropriation of $80,000,000 for high-speed rail
trainsets and facilities;
(6) A total of $2,052,925,000 for the Federal Transit
Administration's formula grants program, including
$400,000,000 for transit operating assistance;
(7) A provision providing for obligations of not to
exceed $1,665,000,000 for the discretionary grants
program of the Federal Transit Administration;
(8) An appropriation of $200,000,000 for construction
of the Washington, D.C. metrorail system;
(9) A total of $204,637,000 for the Office of the
Secretary, $28,926,000 below fiscal year 1996 and
$28,535,000 below the budget request;
(10) The bill includes a total of $51,300,000 in
offsetting collections for Coast Guard, Acquisition,
construction, and improvements; Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations; Research and Special
Programs Administration, Research and special programs;
and Bureau of Transportation Statistics, airline
statistics; and
(11) The bill includes $2,400,000 for a National
Civil Aviation Review Commission.
Tabular Summary
A table summarizing the amounts provided for fiscal year
1996 and the amounts recommended in the bill for fiscal year
1997 compared with the budget estimates is included at the end
of this report.
Committee Hearings
The Committee has conducted extensive hearings on the
programs and projects provided for in the Department of
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for
fiscal year 1997. These hearings are contained in eight
published volumes totaling approximately 10,000 pages. The
Committee received testimony from officials of the executive
branch, Members of Congress, officials of the General
Accounting Office, officials of state and local governments,
and private citizens.
The bill recommendations for fiscal year 1997 have been
developed after careful consideration of all the information
available to the Committee.
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 an appropriations Act (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,
Federal Transit Administration. 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.
Safety Programs
In this bill, the Committee has worked hard to protect
funding for essential safety-related programs of the Department
of Transportation and the independent agencies. This has been
difficult, but not impossible, given the budget constraints
faced by the Federal Government this year. In some cases, funds
have been added to the administration's request for safety-
related activities. However, if, in the judgment of
departmental officials any of the Committee's recommendations
would significantly harm transportation safety, or if
unanticipated safety needs arise during the course of the
appropriations process, the Committee welcomes discussions with
the administration to adjust individual funding levels and
provide the funding needed. The bill also allows significant
flexibility through the reprogramming process, which requires
no further legislative action. The Committee will work with
administration officials to reprogram funds for safety programs
if that should be required.
TITLE I
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\..................... $56,189,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 55,376,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 53,816,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... -2,373,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -1,560,000
\1\ Excludes reductions of $2,365,352 to comply with working capital
fund, awards, and administrative reductions, and $78,000 to comply with
the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.
The bill provides $53,816,000 for salaries and expenses of
the various offices comprising the Office of the Secretary
(OST). This is $2,373,000 below the level enacted last year,
and $1,560,000 below the budget estimate. The Committee
recommendation assumes the following reductions from the budget
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
estimate:
Reductions in staff:
-2 public affairs specialists....................... -$150,000
-2 congressional affairs officers................... -150,000
-2 attorney advisors................................ -200,000
-1 staff assistant, immediate office of the deputy
secretary......................................... -60,000
-10 procurement analysts, office of acquisition..... -1,000,000
Reductions in staff.--The Committee recommendation
eliminates a number of positions in the office of the
secretary, including 2 public affairs specialists (-$150,000),
2 congressional affairs officers (-$150,000), 2 attorney
advisors (-$200,000) and 1 staff assistant in the immediate
office of the deputy secretary (-$60,000). In light of severe
budget constraints and government downsizing, it is the
Committee's belief that these positions can be eliminated
without affecting the core responsibilities, functions and
duties of the department.
The Committee recommendation also eliminates 10 procurement
analysts from the office of acquisition and grants management.
While the Committee once supported the department's intended
aggressive initiative to improve acquisition oversight at the
departmental level, the Committee now questions the value added
by limited, informal secretarial overviews. For example, the
Coast Guard indicated to the Committee that within the past
year no formal oversight reviews of its major acquisitions were
performed. Further, the FAA, which is responsible for the vast
majority of the department's major acquisitions, was provided
new acquisition authorities over the past year, and as a
result, the administrative offices of the secretary have little
if any oversight role.
Electronic tariff filing.--The bill includes a provision
that permits the Office of the Secretary to credit $1,000,000
in user fees to support the electronic tariff filing system.
Hispanic serving institutions.--The Committee applauds the
Department of Transportation on its efforts to enhance
educational and career opportunities for minority students in
the areas of science, technology and transportation matters.
The Committee acknowledges the activities of the Office of
Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU),
university transportation centers (UTCs), and the Research and
Special Programs Administration (RSPA) in this regard. The
Committee strongly encourages the department, especially in its
planning and research components (including, but not limited,
to OSDBU, UTCs, and RSPA), to include participation by Hispanic
serving institutions in any current or future plans to increase
its pre-designated or targeted research, development and
education funds.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Limitation on political and Presidential appointees.--The
Committee has included a provision in the bill (sec. 305),
similar to provisions in past Department of Transportation and
Related Agencies Appropriations Acts, which limits the number
of political and Presidential appointees within the Department
of Transportation. The ceiling for fiscal year 1997 is 107
personnel, which is an increase of seven personnel from the
fiscal year 1996 ceiling. The budget estimate included 117
personnel. The bill specifies that no political or Presidential
appointee may be detailed outside the Department of
Transportation.
Advisory committees.--As in previous years, the Committee
has again limited the funds used for the expenses of advisory
committees of the Department of Transportation. This year the
Committee has limited to $850,000 the expenses of advisory
committees, the same as enacted in fiscal year 1996.
Office of Civil Rights
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\..................... $6,554,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 5,574,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 5,574,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... -980,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................................
\1\ Excludes reductions of $927,000 to comply with working capital fund,
awards, and administrative reductions, and $9,000 to comply with the
Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.
The Committee recommends $5,574,000 for the office of civil
rights, the same level as the budget estimate and $980,000
below last year's appropriation. In fiscal year 1995, the
management of internal civil rights activities was consolidated
in the office of the secretary with transfer authority provided
in the ``salaries and expenses'' account. Reductions from the
previous year's appropriations are associated with one-time
start-up costs that are no longer needed. The appropriated
level will support 76 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff years.
The office of civil rights is responsible for advising the
Secretary on civil rights and equal opportunity matters and
ensuring full implementation of civil rights and equal
opportunity precepts in all of the department's official
actions and programs.
Transportation Planning, Research, and Development
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\..................... $8,220,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 7,919,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 3,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... -5,220,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -4,919,000
\1\ Excludes reductions of $301,000 to comply with working capital fund,
awards, and administrative reductions, and $13,000 to comply with the
Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.
This appropriation finances those research activities and
studies concerned with planning, analysis, and information
development needed to support the Secretary's responsibilities
in the formulation of national transportation policies. The
overall program is carried out primarily through contracts with
other federal agencies, educational institutions, nonprofit
research organizations, and private firms.
The Committee recommends $3,000,000 for this appropriation,
which represents a decrease of $5,220,000 below the funding
level provided for fiscal year 1996. The recommended level
holds transportation and planning studies to $2,757,000
(-$51,000) and permits the annualization and other pay-related
costs for 17 FTEs, as requested in the budget. The Committee
has included $100,000 to continue the department's ongoing
analysis of impacts on Mexico and the United States related to
motor carrier impacts of the North American Free Trade
Agreement. The recommendation deletes funding for planned trade
promotion activities which should be provided by the Department
of Commerce.
The recommended level reflects elimination of further
funding for the transportation automated procurement system
(TAPS) (-$2,511,000) and the docket management system (DMS)
(-$1,100,000). The TAPS pilot test program and evaluation have
yet to be completed within the office of the secretary and, as
a result, further departmental conversion and full
implementation are premature. While the Committee agrees that
further improvements may be desirable, they must be deferred
due to the high outlays associated with this account and the
tight budget constraints facing Congress. The recommended level
deletes funding for the development of GPS augmentation
(-$1,000,000), holds ``other costs'' to the 1996 level
(-$257,000), and assumes the transfer of aviation information
management to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
Transportation Administrative Service Center
Limitation, fiscal year 1996 \1\........................ ($103,149,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997 \2\................... (124,812,000)
Recommended in the bill \3\............................. (124,812,000)
Bill compared with:
Limitation, fiscal year 1996........................ (+21,663,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... (--)
\1\ Excludes reductions of $7,506,000 to comply with working capital
fund and awards provisions.
\2\ Proposed without limitation.
\3\ In fiscal year 1997, the limitation on transportation administrative
service center expenses is also addressed in a general provision
(-$10,000,000).
The Committee has agreed with the budget request to create
a transportation administrative service center (TASC) to
finance common administrative services that are centrally
performed in the interest of economy and efficiency in the
department. The fund is to be financed through negotiated
agreements with the department's operating administrations, and
other governmental elements requiring the center's
capabilities.
The Committee, however, has denied the department's request
to eliminate all appropriations language and has instead
included a limitation on activities financed through the TASC
at the level requested in the budget. In addition, the
Committee has included two language provisions. The first
provision limits activities transferred to the transportation
administrative service center to only those approved by the
agency modal administrator; the second would limit special
assessments or reimbursable agreements levied against any
program, project or activity funded in this Act to only those
assessments or reimbursable agreements presented to and
approved by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
To ensure smooth operations and accountability of the TASC
in its nascent stages of development and organization, the
Committee directs the department to submit with the
department's Congressional budget submission an approved annual
operating plan of the TASC and quarterly status reports for the
Committee's review. Quarterly reports and approvals of the
Secretary's management council shall also be provided to the
Committee.
The Committee does not view the TASC as an opportunity to
increase the number of departmental administrative staff. The
Committee directs the department not to hire any new staff
above a GS-12 level for the TASC in fiscal year 1996 until
after the director of the TASC is hired. In addition, the
department is not to hire any TASC staff in fiscal year 1997 in
excess of the end-of-year, on-board level in fiscal year 1996.
General provision.--The Committee has included a general
provision (sec. 321) which provides that amounts budgeted for
the transportation administrative service center in this bill
are reduced, on a pro rata basis, to the limitation level of
$114,812,000.
Payments to Air Carriers
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(airport and airway trust fund)
Liquidation of
contract Limitation on
authorization obligations
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996. ($22,600,000) ($22,600,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year
1997........................... (21,922,000) (21,922,000)
Recommended in the bill......... (10,000,000) (10,000,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year
1996....................... (-12,600,000) (-12,600,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year
1997....................... (-11,922,000) (-11,922,000)
The essential air service program was created by the
Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 as a temporary measure to
continue air service to communities that had received federally
mandated air service prior to deregulation. The program
currently provides subsidies to air carriers serving small
communities that meet certain criteria. Subsidies, ranging from
$4 to $322 per passenger, currently support air service to 74
communities (excluding Alaska) and serve about 600,000
passengers annually. This program was established to provide a
smooth phaseout of federal subsidies to airlines that service
small airports.
The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the essential air
service program. The recommendation is $12,600,000 below last
year's level and $11,922,000 below the budget estimate. The
House-passed budget resolution called for the termination of
this program.
The Committee has not imposed a legislative local matching
requirement, as was proposed by the House last year. The
Committee, however, directs the Office of the Secretary to give
preference to those communities that provide a local cost share
without unduly disadvantaging the most rural communities.
Tuscaloosa, Alabama.--The Committee is aware that the
carrier providing service to Tuscaloosa, Alabama, has proposed
to discontinue service in fiscal year 1996. Because Tuscaloosa
Municipal Airport is currently benefiting from the essential
air service program, the Committee urges the department to work
with the carrier to ensure continued operations.
The following table lists the projected subsidized air
service points in fiscal year 1997:
CURRENTLY SUBSIDIZED EAS COMMUNITIES \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
Estimated daily Current
mileage to enplanement annual Subsidy per
States/communities nearest hub at EAS subsidy passenger
(S, M. or point (YE 3/ rates (June
L) 31/95) 1, 1996)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama:
Tuscaloosa.............................................. 61 32.1 (\2\) ...........
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 10.0 412,931 66.05
Hot Springs............................................. 54 14.9 412,931 44.34
Jonesboro............................................... 71 10.5 474,453 71.98
California:
Cresent 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
Illinois:
Mt. Vernon.............................................. 92 6.3 (\2\) ...........
Sterling/Rock Falls..................................... 105 4.1 (\2\) ...........
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 \3\.................................. 71 21.5 288,516 42.92
Bar Harbor.............................................. 164 16.9 259,243 24.57
Rockland................................................ 79 14.8 259,243 28.02
Michigan:
Ironwood/Ashland........................................ 218 13.4 (\2\) ...........
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
Lewistown............................................... 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
Norfolk................................................. 109 11.2 (\2\) ...........
Nevada:
Ely..................................................... 236 7.4 508,759 109.74
New Hampshire:
Keene................................................... 56 7.2 382,283 84.67
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 20.5 132,540 10.34
Ogdensburg.............................................. 127 10.0 132,540 21.15
Watertown............................................... 69 15.8 132,540 13.44
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
Vermont:
Rutland................................................. 67 10.4 382,283 58.54
Virginia:
Staunton................................................ 108 31.4 225,029 11.46
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 two-year 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\ Rate under negotiation.
\3\ Enplanements based on less than a full year's passenger data annualized.
Payments to Air Carriers
(airport and airway trust fund)
(Rescission of contract authorization)
Rescission, fiscal year 1996............................ -$16,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... -16,678,000
Recommended in the bill................................. -28,600,000
Bill compared with:.....................................
Rescission, fiscal year 1996........................ -12,600,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -11,922,000
The bill includes a rescission of contract authority of
$28,600,000. This rescission removes contract authority which
is not available for obligation due to annual limits on
obligations. A similar rescission of $16,000,000 was made in
fiscal year 1996.
Payments to Air Carriers
(rescission)
Rescission, fiscal year 1996............................ -$6,786,971
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... -1,133,373
Recommended in the bill................................. -1,133,000
Bill compared with:
Rescission, fiscal year 1996........................ +5,653,971
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... +373
The bill includes a rescission of balances of general funds
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. Starting
in fiscal year 1992, this program has been funded from the
airport and airway trust fund. 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
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... $135,200,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997 \1\................... 137,581,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 127,447,000
Bill compared with:.....................................
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... -7,753,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -10,134,000
\1\ Rental payments for the Federal Highway Administration are
separately budgeted but reimbursed to this account.
The bill provides $127,447,000 in a consolidated
appropriation for rental payments to the General Services
Administration (GSA). These funds are used to pay GSA for
headquarters and field space rental and related services. In
addition to these consolidated funds, the bill provides that
$17,294,000 shall be provided to GSA from the Federal Highway
Administration's ``Limitation on general operating expenses''.
This brings total funding to $144,741,000. The Committee has
been concerned for some time over the spiraling growth in these
expenses, and has accordingly limited to 8,580,000 square feet
the amount of space that the department may lease from the GSA.
The Committee notes that fiscal year 1995 through 1997
space utilization rates are higher than in prior years because
the department has not been able to release space back to the
General Services Administration proportional to workforce
reductions. These reductions have involved several individual
office locations which have heretofore not allowed the
department to capture contiguous blocks of space that can be
released. However, in response to evaluations of the Nassif
building's heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems
and the health and comfort of its occupants, the department now
anticipates extensive cleaning of the Nassif building. Because
of the significant disruption that this will cause, the
department will relocate employees beginning in May 1996 and
continuing throughout the summer. This presents the department
a significant, unexpected opportunity to consolidate its space
requirements in the Nassif building, reduce its space
utilization rates in fiscal year 1997, and release unused space
to the General Services Administration.
The Committee has included a general provision (sec. 326)
that will permit the Secretary to transfer funds from salaries
and expenses to ``Rental payments'' to cover space utility
charges and other related expenses in excess of the amounts
provided in the bill.
Minority Business Resource Center Program
Limitation on
Appropriation direct loans
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996........ $1,900,000 ($15,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...... 1,900,000 (15,000,000)
Recommended in the bill................ 1,900,000 (15,000,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.... ............. ................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.. ............. ................
The minority business resource center of the Office of
Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization provides
assistance in obtaining short-term working capital and bonding
for disadvantaged, minority, and women-owned businesses. The
program enables qualified businesses to obtain loans at prime
interest rates for transportation-related projects.
Prior to fiscal year 1993, loans under this program were
funded by the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business
Utilization without a limitation. Reflecting the changes made
by the Credit Reform Act of 1990, beginning in fiscal year 1993
a separate appropriation was proposed in the President's budget
only for the subsidy inherently assumed in those loans and the
cost to administer the loan program.
The recommendation fully funds the budget request, which
provides a limitation on direct loans of $15,000,000 and
subsidy and administrative costs totaling $1,900,000, the same
levels as last year.
Minority Business Outreach
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\..................... $2,900,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 2,900,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 2,900,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................................
\1\ Excludes reduction of $4,000 to comply with the Omnibus Consolidated
Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.
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 grants and
contract assistance that serve DOT-wide goals and not just
office of the secretary purposes. The Committee has provided
$2,900,000, the same level as provided in fiscal year 1996 and
included in the budget estimate.
COAST GUARD
Summary of Fiscal Year 1997 Program
The 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. This was followed by
transfers to the Coast Guard of the United States Lighthouse
Service in 1939 and the Bureau of Marine Inspection and
Navigation in 1942. The Coast Guard has as its primary
responsibilities enforcing all applicable federal laws on the
high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States; promoting safety of life and property at sea; aiding
navigation; protecting the marine environment; and maintaining
a state of readiness to function as a specialized service of
the Navy in time of war.
The Committee recommends a total program level of
$3,708,319,000 for activities of the Coast Guard in fiscal year
1997. This is $42,405,000 (1.1 percent) less than the budget
estimate, and $32,931,000 (1 percent) more than the fiscal year
1996 program level.
The following table summarizes the fiscal year 1996 program
levels, the fiscal year 1997 program requests, and the
Committee's recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Recommended in
1996 enacted\1\ 1997 estimate the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating expenses........................................... $2,278,991,000 $2,637,850,000 $2,609,100,000
Acquisition, construction, and improvements.................. 362,375,000 411,600,000 358,000,000
Offsetting collections....................................... ............... -20,000,000 -20,000,000
Rescissions.................................................. ............... ............... -3,755,000
Environmental compliance and restoration..................... 21,000,000 25,000,000 21,000,000
Alteration of bridges........................................ 16,000,000 2,000,000 16,000,000
Retired pay.................................................. 582,022,000 608,084,000 608,084,000
Reserve training............................................. 62,000,000 65,890,000 65,890,000
Research, development, test, and evaluation.................. 18,000,000 20,300,000 19,000,000
Port safety development...................................... 15,000,000 ............... ...............
Boat safety.................................................. 20,000,000 ............... 35,000,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 3,375,388,000 3,750,724,000 3,708,319,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $300,000,000 in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1996, reductions to comply with
working capital fund and administrative provisions, and the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and
Appropriations Act of 1996.
Operating Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\..................... $2,578,991,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997 \2\................... 2,637,850,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 2,609,100,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... + 30,109,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... - 28,750,000
\1\ Includes $300,000,000 in the Department of Defense Appropriations
Act, 1996.
\2\ Includes $118,500,000 for defense-related activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
budget by mission category
The following data is based on the Coast Guard budget
submission and summarizes, by Coast Guard mission, the expected
resources to be provided for each major Coast Guard mission for
fiscal years 1995 through 1997. Because of the nature of the
service's accounting systems and unknown changes in operational
needs, these figures are estimates.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 actual 1996 estimate 1997 estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Search and rescue................................... $385,326,000 $383,716,000 $390,573,000
Aids to navigation.................................. 524,180,000 499,113,000 513,058,000
Marine safety....................................... 330,467,000 311,998,000 320,129,000
Marine environmental protection..................... 235,711,000 236,494,000 241,719,000
Enforcement of laws and treaties.................... 947,567,000 952,636,000 974,216,000
Ice operations...................................... 91,082,000 90,669,000 94,016,000
Defense readiness................................... 110,505,000 101,304,000 104,139,000
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total......................................... 2,624,838,000 2,575,930,000 2,637,850,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Recommendation
The Committee recommends a total of $2,609,100,000 for
operating activities of the Coast Guard in fiscal year 1997.
This is $28,750,000 (one percent) below the budget request, and
$30,109,000 above the fiscal year 1996 program level. The
following table compares the fiscal year 1996 enacted level,
the fiscal year 1997 estimate, and the recommended level by
program, project and activity:
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
The recommended reduction from the budget estimate includes
the following adjustments:
Change
Excessive funding for maintenance....................... -$14,307,000
District offices........................................ -3,689,000
Miscellaneous supplies.................................. -3,700,000
Ammunition and small arms............................... -2,000,000
Offset for boating safety grant increase................ -304,000
Non-operational travel.................................. -1,000,000
Professional training and education..................... -2,000,000
Maintenance and Logistics Command administration........ -1,750,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... -28,750,000
pay and allowances
The bill includes $1,597,856,000 for pay and allowances of
Coast Guard military and civilian personnel, the same amount as
included in the President's budget. The bill includes funds for
a 3.0 percent pay raise for both military and civilian
personnel, as requested. Within the amount provided, the bill
includes all funds requested for special pays for military
personnel.
depot level maintenance
The bill includes $361,937,000 for depot level maintenance,
a reduction of $14,307,000 from the budget estimate. The budget
assumed approval of a proposed reprogramming during fiscal year
1996 involving the transfer of maintenance funds to other Coast
Guard activities, and requested restoration of those funds to
the base funding for maintenance in fiscal year 1997. Since the
reprogramming has neither been approved by the department, the
Senate, nor the House at this late point in the fiscal year,
the Committee believes the Coast Guard should continue using
those funds for maintenance, as originally appropriated. With
this action, the $14,307,000 is excess to requirements in
fiscal year 1997.
Operations And Support
The bill includes $405,636,000 for operations and support,
which is $13,765,000 (3.5 percent) more than the level provided
for fiscal year 1996. This budget activity funds operations of
medium- and high-endurance cutters, area offices, district
offices, air stations, maintenance and logistics commands, and
other operational units.
Maintenance and logistics command administration.--The
Committee recommends $121,663,000, a reduction of $1,750,000
below the budget estimate. The reduction is due to budget
constraints. The Committee has attempted to allocate reductions
to administrative activities such as these in order to preserve
funding, to the maximum extent possible, for high priority
operational support activities. the recommended funding level
is 1.8 percent below the fiscal year 1996 enacted level.
District offices.--The Committee recommendation of
$54,037,000 provides an increase of 1.5 percent to handle non-
pay inflationary cost increases. The President's budget
requested $57,726,000, an increase of 8 percent. The Committee
believes this level of funding will be sufficient, especially
considering the Coast Guard is in the process of eliminating
two district offices as part of its overall streamlining plan.
Ammunition and small arms.--The Committee recommendation of
$2,667,000 is $2,000,000 below the budget estimate. The
Committee understands that, due to recent changes in the Coast
Guard's military readiness plans, a permanent decrease in the
requirement for ammunition and small arms is justified.
Coast Guard Auxiliary.--The Committee is supportive of
efforts to increase the use of the Coast Guard Auxiliary to
supplement active duty military and civilian personnel in
carrying out vital Coast Guard missions. In that regard, the
Committee is disturbed to note that the Coast Guard's fiscal
year 1997 budget reduces funding for Auxiliary support, just at
the time the Auxiliary is being asked to do more. The fiscal
year 1997 budget reduces those funds by 13 percent, from
$11,500,000 to $10,000,000. According to the Coast Guard,
Auxiliary-responded search and rescue cases declined by 16
percent between fiscal years 1993 and 1995. The Committee is
concerned that, with boating activity now bouncing back from
the recession of a few years ago and the Coast Guard
downsizing, there will be a widening gap between the boating
public's needs and the services provided. The Committee
encourages the Coast Guard to provide additional funding for
Auxiliary support, above the $10,000,000 shown in the
President's budget, if at all possible during the year.
Supervisory span of control.--Currently, the government-
wide supervisory span of control is approximately 1 manager for
every 7 employees. The goal of the national performance review
(NPR) is to double that, to reach a level of 1 manager for
every 14 employees. Currently, the Coast Guard employs 1
officer (including chief warrant officers) for each 3.9
enlisted employees. This is far lower than the level achieved
government-wide in the civilian workforce or expected under NPR
initiatives. While the Committee notes the Coast Guard's
opinion that such measures should not be applied to a military
workforce, the Committee also notes that the Coast Guard's
officer-to-enlisted ratio is lower than any other military
service (excluding the Air Force, which does not keep
comparable records). As streamlining consolidates activities
both geographically and organizationally, there is significant
opportunity to reduce layers of middle management and
supervision, thereby improving the supervisory span of control
and lowering overall costs. The Committee urges the Coast Guard
to examine this situation as the service implements its ongoing
streamlining program.
Mackinaw.--The bill includes the requested funding of
$5,872,000 for continued operation and maintenance of the
icebreaking cutter Mackinaw during fiscal year 1997. A recent
study of Great Lakes icebreaking by the Volpe National
Transportation Systems Center concluded that the Coast Guard's
annual expenditure of $8,800,000 in icebreaking on the Great
Lakes saves American industry approximately $78,000,000 each
year.
Abandoned barges, Houston, TX.--The bill includes
$2,000,000 for Coast Guard removal of abandoned barges in the
Houston ship channel and the San Jacinto River, and the Coast
Guard is directed to use such funds only for that purpose.
Multi-mission small boat stations.--Funding has been
provided to keep in operation all existing multi-mission small
boat Coast Guard stations. The Committee expects no stations to
be closed.
Defense readiness activities.--The Coast Guard's operating
budget request, and the Committee recommendation, provide total
funding of $328,000,000 for drug interdiction activities during
fiscal year 1997. In order to bolster specific anti-drug
operations, the Committee directs that, within the amount
provided, the following specific allocations be provided:
Outboard motors--riverine operations.................... $2,000,000
Boston whalers, hovercraft, and maintenance............. 12,000,000
Shoreline monitoring.................................... 10,000,000
HU-25 falcon jet operations............................. 10,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 34,000,000
The Committee recommendation is based upon recent findings
of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee as
discussed in House Report 104-486 (March 19, 1996). The
Committee believes these are high priority initiatives. The
balance of drug interdiction funding (90 percent of the total)
is to be distributed at the discretion of the Coast Guard
Commandant.
Recruiting And Training Support
The bill includes $66,429,000 for recruiting and training
support, a reduction of $2,206,000 (3 percent) below the fiscal
year 1996 enacted level, and $2,000,000 below the budget
request. This budget activity funds recruiting and training
activities including support for the Coast Guard Academy and
Coast Guard training centers in Yorktown, Virginia; Petaluma,
California; and Cape May, New Jersey.
Coast Guard-Wide Centralized Services And Support
The bill includes $182,246,000 for Coast Guard-wide
centralized services and support, an increase of $5,114,000
(2.9 percent) above the fiscal year 1996 enacted level and no
change from the budget request. This budget activity finances
certain Coast Guard units managed at headquarters and bills for
items such as telecommunications and workers compensation,
which are paid centrally by headquarters.
Account-Wide Adjustments
The Committee recommends account-wide reductions totaling
$5,004,000, as discussed below.
Miscellaneous supplies.--The Coast Guard budgets for such
items as dining supplies, office supplies, periodicals,
commissary supplies, and shore facility housekeeping items in a
budget category called miscellaneous supplies. Given the
significant downsizing under way in the Coast Guard, the
Committee believes these costs should be going down. However,
the Coast Guard requested a 6 percent increase in this area.
The Committee recommendation holds those costs to the fiscal
year 1996 level of $61,229,000. The Committee has reviewed the
Coast Guard's lengthy list of routine in-house publications,
and believes the service could start by reviewing costs in that
area.
Boat safety administration offset.--During consideration of
the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1995, the Coast Guard
indicated its willingness to forgo their administrative
drawdown from the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund in order to
provide additional funding for boating safety grants. In this
way, funds for boat safety could be raised without taking funds
from sport fish restoration activities. In fiscal year 1996,
the trust fund contribution to Coast Guard operating expenses
was $20,000,000. While the Committee considered transferring
the full $20,000,000 from Coast Guard ``Operating expenses'' to
boating safety grants in order to finance the higher level of
funding in the latter program, the Committee recommendation
instead retains the majority of those funds in operating
expenses, for the service to maintain and improve boating
safety across the country. The Coast Guard proposed a
significant increase in funding for boating safety grants,
while at the same time restoring the full trust fund
contribution to their general fund operating budget. Given the
50 percent increase in total funding for boating safety grants
in fiscal year 1997 (from $30,000,000 to $45,000,000), the
Committee believes this modest reduction will be more than
offset by a lower level of required activity due to the success
of state public information and education activities funded by
boating safety federal grants.
Non-operational travel.--The Committee received a
disturbing report from the DOT Inspector General this year
regarding travel by senior officials in the department. Some of
this travel was taken by Coast Guard officials, including the
apparently routine use of actual expenses to go to conferences
and meetings. The Committee has seen no evidence that Coast
Guard policy or monitoring efforts have changed as a result of
these IG findings. Given this issue, as well as the reduced
numbers of Coast Guard personnel from downsizing efforts, the
Committee believes non-operational travel should be declining.
The Committee recommends $48,935,000 for non-operational
travel, a reduction of $1,000,000 below the budget estimate and
approximately the same as the level provided for fiscal year
1996 ($49,005,000). Although travel costs are expected to
experience some inflationary growth in fiscal year 1997, the
Committee believes closer monitoring of travel expenses will
enable the Coast Guard to engage in all necessary travel during
the coming fiscal year.
Bill Language
Executive order 12839.--The bill specifies that the
Commandant shall reduce both military and civilian employment
for the purpose of complying with executive order 12839. This
provision has been included in the bill for several years
without change.
General Provision
Vessel traffic safety fairway, Santa Barbara/San
Francisco.--The bill continues as a general provision (Sec.
313) language that would prohibit funds to plan, finalize, or
implement regulations that would establish a vessel traffic
safety fairway less than five miles wide between the Santa
Barbara traffic separation scheme and the San Francisco traffic
separation scheme. On April 27, 1989, the Department published
a notice of proposed rulemaking that would narrow the
originally proposed five-mile-wide fairway to two one-mile-wide
fairways separated by a two-mile-wide area where offshore oil
rigs could be built if lease sale 119 goes forward. Under this
revised proposal, vessels would be routed in close proximity to
oil rigs because the two-mile-wide non-fairway corridor could
contain drilling rigs at the edge of the fairways. The
Committee is concerned that this rule, if implemented, could
increase the threat of offshore oil accidents off the
California coast. Accordingly, the bill continues the language
prohibiting the implementation of this regulation.
Conveyance of Light Station, Montauk Point, New York.--The
bill includes a general provision (Sec. 339) which requires the
Secretary of Transportation to convey to the Montauk Historical
Association the U.S. Government's interest in Light Station
Montauk Point, located in Montauk, New York. Relating to this
matter, the bill incorporates by reference and in their
entirety the provisions of section 423 of the Coast Guard
Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996, as passed the House of
Representatives on May 9, 1995. Although this conveyance has
been approved by the House of Representatives, final
Congressional action on the Coast Guard Authorization Act has
been delayed. To ensure the timely conveyance of this property
without further delay, the Committee believes it important to
include such a provision in this bill.
Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... $362,375,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997 \1\................... 411,600,000
Recommended in the bill \1\............................. 358,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\................. -4,375,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997 \1\............... -53,600,000
\1\ Excludes proposed asset sales.
The bill includes $358,000,000 for the capital acquisition,
construction, and improvement programs of the Coast Guard for
vessels, aircraft, other equipment, shore facilities, and
related administrative expenses, of which $20,000,000 is to be
derived from the oil spill liability trust fund. Of the total
provided, $9,600,000 represents offsets from proposed sale of
Coast Guard assets. In addition, the bill includes a proposal
to sell Coast Guard property in Wildwood, New Jersey, which is
estimated to add another $20,000,000 in offsetting collections.
Consistent with past practice, the bill also includes
language distributing the total appropriation by budget
activity and providing separate obligation availabilities
appropriate for the type of activity being performed. The
Committee continues to believe that these obligation
availabilities provide fiscal discipline and reduce long-term
unobligated balances.
Committee Recommendation
The following table compares the fiscal year 1996 enacted
level, the fiscal year 1997 estimate, and the recommended level
by program, project and activity:
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Vessels
The Committee recommends $205,600,000 for vessels, an
increase of $38,000,000 above the amount provided for fiscal
year 1996. Approximately 60 percent of this amount
($124,000,000) is to continue production of the Coast Guard's
new seagoing and coastal buoy tenders, which the Committee
considers a high priority due to the age of the current buoy
tender fleet.
Seagoing buoy tender (WLB).--The Committee recommends
$50,000,000 to purchase one additional seagoing buoy tender, a
reduction of $9,500,000 from the amount requested. Last year,
the Congress provided $65,000,000 for two vessels. While
supportive of this program, the Committee is disturbed to note
the significantly increased unit sailaway costs budgeted for
the full production oceangoing buoy tenders. Since the current
contractor is producing 2 ships for approximately $32,000,000
each in fiscal year 1996, it strains credibility to believe
that the same ship--built to the same design--will cost almost
twice as much in the coming fiscal year, especially after going
through a new competition. The Coast Guard believes that full
and open competition will result in much higher costs for the
first full production vessel. To the contrary, the Committee
believes the competition should result in savings, particularly
since five vessels are already under contract and all
contractors are being required to build to the same
specification. The bill provides $50 million for this vessel,
still a large increase over the amount provided for each vessel
in fiscal year 1996.
Coastal buoy tender (WLM).--The Committee recommends
$74,000,000 for this program, a reduction of $6,000,000 from
the level requested. The Committee notes that as of March 31,
1996, this program had an unobligated balance of $91,600,000.
Buoy boat replacement (BUSL).--The Committee recommends no
funding for the stern loading buoy boat (BUSL) in fiscal year
1997, a reduction of $8,500,000 from the budget request. The
Coast Guard planned to obligate the fiscal year 1996 funds in
fiscal year 1997, then put an additional five boats under
contract at some future time during the year. Given the
slippage in this program due to termination of the boatbuilding
contract last year, the $9,000,000 in fiscal year 1996 funds
(to build five boats) provides sufficient work to maintain this
program during fiscal year 1997. The Committee will consider
additional funds next year, after experience has been gained on
these first five production models.
82-foot coastal patrol boat (CPB).--The Committee
recommends $35,000,000 for continued replacement of the 82-foot
coastal patrol boat, a reduction of $2,800,000 from the budget
request. The modest reduction reflects the large unobligated
balance in this program. When combined with the $9,985,000 in
fiscal year 1995 funds planned for obligation in August 1996,
the Coast Guard will have $44,985,000 to sustain the
boatbuilding effort throughout the following fourteen months.
The Committee is very supportive of this program, and believes
that this level of funding is sufficient to run an economical
program.
Surface search radar.--The Committee recommends $4,000,000
for this project, a reduction of $4,600,000 due to budget
constraints. While a worthwhile project, there is no compelling
justification to significantly raise this funding above the
$3,500,000 provided for fiscal year 1996.
Aircraft
The Committee recommends $18,300,000 for aircraft, an
increase of $6,300,000 (53 percent) above the fiscal year 1996
enacted level.
Global positioning system installation.--The Committee
recommends $1,900,000, the same level of funding as provided in
fiscal year 1996. The Coast Guard requested $2,900,000.
HC-130 engine conversion.--The Committee recommends
$6,800,000, a reduction of $2,000,000 below the budget request.
No funds were provided in fiscal year 1996. This project seeks
to improve the reliability and maintainability of the C-130's
T56 engine by upgrading it from the series II version to the
series III version. The budget proposed to produce and install
22 of the required 52 kits in fiscal year 1997. While a
meritorious program, the Committee believes this can be phased
in at a slower overall pace due to budget constraints and the
need to fund higher priority activities.
HH-65 kapton rewiring.--The Committee recommendation of
$3,500,000 is $1,500,000 above the budget request. According to
the Coast Guard, kapton wiring in the HH-65 helicopter poses a
serious safety risk to Coast Guard flight crews. There have
been 13 in-flight fires in the past 4 years due to kapton
wiring, including 5 resulting in total loss of power to the
aircraft. Even though the Coast Guard stated ``this safety of
flight issue will escalate with time as the kapton wiring
continues to decompose'', the service proposed a slow, lengthy
program to address the issue. The Committee recommends a faster
replacement schedule, applying some of the savings from other
programs to accelerate a fleet-wide fix for this serious safety
problem.
VC-11A sale.--The Committee has reduced the request by
$600,000 in recognition of funds credited to this appropriation
from the recent sale of the VC-11A aircraft.
HU-25 sale.--The Committee's recommendation assumes that at
least $1,000,000 in offsetting collections are credited to this
appropriation in fiscal year 1997 from sale of Coast Guard HU-
25 (Falcon) jet aircraft. The service is pursuing the sale of
some of this inventory, but has assumed no financial resources
resulting therefrom.
Other Equipment
The Committee recommends $39,900,000 for other equipment, a
reduction of $6,800,000 below the budget estimate.
Vessel traffic service (VTS) system 2000.--The bill
includes no funding to continue this program, a reduction of
$6,000,000, and rescinds $3,755,000 in unobligated prior year
funding. In addition, the bill includes a limitation
prohibiting funds from being used to continue the VTS 2000
program. It is the Committee's firm intention that this program
be terminated by the Coast Guard, and that the service
immediately begin exploration of low-cost, off-the-shelf
alternatives to VTS 2000 in cooperation and close coordination
with affected port authorities, waterway operators, and other
system users. The Committee's recommendation is based on the
following:
GAO testimony that, after several years of study, the Coast
Guard does not know how many VTS 2000 systems will be needed,
and will not know for at least four more years;
Evidence that low-cost private and federal VTS systems are
operating today with similar performance to that envisioned for
VTS 2000;
Testimony that economic benefits of the system are not
clearly established in many of the locations under
consideration;
GAO's statement that ``we did not find widespread support
for VTS 2000 among the interviewed stakeholders at the eight
ports where we conducted site visits * * * many who opposed VTS
2000 said the proposed system would likely be more expensive
than necessary for their port''; and
Coast Guard's continued slippage of the program schedule,
and their ongoing evaluation of how to finance the system's
high operating costs in a declining budget environment, make
the program's future prospects highly questionable.
In summary, this system lacks the support of the
communities in which it would need to be installed, appears to
be gold-plated in design, and involves an unnecessarily high
cost in both acquisition and operations. The GAO recommended
that, given the high development cost and the large number of
proposed sites that show relatively low net benefits, the Coast
Guard ``determine whether the safety benefits of VTS 2000 can
be achieved more inexpensively by installing other VTS
systems''. The Committee agrees. The Committee urges the Coast
Guard to develop a follow-on program as soon as possible, in
order to prevent further delay.
Personnel management information system/joint uniformed
military pay system II.--The Committee believes this upgrade to
the Coast Guard's payroll and accounting system can be phased
over a longer period of time in order to fund higher priority
initiatives within the resources available. The Committee
recommends $800,000, half of the $1,600,000 included in the
budget request. No funds were provided in fiscal year 1996.
Shore Facilities and Aids to Navigation Facilities
The Committee recommends $47,950,000 for shore facilities,
a reduction of $11,550,000 below the budget estimate.
Coast Guard Yard ship handling facility.--The Committee
recommends $3,950,000 for this project, a reduction of
$1,000,000 below the budget request. The Committee believes
given the long-term nature of the requirement meant to be
addressed by this project, the overall work can be phased in a
more gradual manner.
Support Center Portsmouth, VA sandblasting facility.--The
Committee recommends $2,000,000, a reduction of $550,000 from
the budget estimate. The reduction is due to budget
constraints.
San Juan, PR base consolidation.--The Committee recommends
$10,000,000, a reduction of $2,000,000 below the budget
estimate. This is the first year of a multiyear, $24,400,000
project to upgrade and consolidate Coast Guard base facilities
in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Noting the long-term nature of this
project and past schedule difficulties in the family housing
project in Puerto Rico, the Committee believes the existing
schedule may be unattainable, and that a slower pace of funding
will not undermine attainment of the overall project's goals.
Upolu Point, HI offset from sale.--The Coast Guard advised
the Committee this year that the General Services
Administration is preparing to sell the former Loran station at
Upolu Point, Hawaii. There is evidence that the sale of this
property could result in significant offsetting collections
being credited to the Coast Guard's appropriation, lessening
their need for new budget authority. The Committee bill assumes
an offset of $8,000,000 from the sale of this property.
Personnel and Related Support
The bill includes $46,250,000 for AC&I personnel and
related support, an increase of $1,550,000 (3.5 percent) above
the fiscal year 1996 enacted level, and a reduction of $750,000
from the budget estimate. Given the program reductions in this
bill, the Coast Guard's requirement for acquisition personnel
will be less than budgeted. For example, the President's budget
includes 20 staff years to manage the VTS 2000 program, which
has been terminated in this bill.
Quarterly acquisition reports.--The Coast Guard is directed
to continue submission of the quarterly acquisition reports to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. The Coast
Guard is to continue including with each such report an up-to-
date listing of unobligated balances by acquisition project and
by fiscal year, a Congressional direction first implemented in
fiscal year 1996.
Bill Language
Wildwood, NJ asset sale.--The bill includes language
requested by the administration allowing proceeds from the sale
of property in Wildwood, New Jersey to be credited to this
appropriation as offsetting receipts, and stipulating that such
proceeds shall be included in the budget baseline required by
the Budget Enforcement Act. This provision saves $20,000,000 in
budget authority and outlays.
Disposal of real property.--The bill includes a provision
first enacted in fiscal year 1996 crediting to this
appropriation proceeds from the sale or lease of the Coast
Guard's surplus real property. This provision was requested in
the President's budget.
Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements
(Rescissions)
Rescissions, fiscal year 1996...........................................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.......................................
Recommended in the bill................................. -$3,755,000
Bill compared with:
Rescissions, fiscal year 1996....................... -3,755,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -3,755,000
The bill includes a rescission of $3,400,000 from the
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1996 (P.L. 104-50), and a rescission of
$355,000 from the Department of Transportation and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995 (P.L. 103-331). These
represent the unobligated balances from the ``VTS 2000''
Program, which is being terminated. Discussion of this
recommendation is under ``Acquisition, construction, and
improvements''.
Environmental Compliance and Restoration
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... $21,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 25,000,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 21,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -4,000,000
The Committee recommends $21,000,000 to bring Coast Guard
facilities into compliance with applicable federal, state and
environmental regulations; to conduct facilities response
plans; to develop pollution and hazardous waste minimization
strategies; to conduct environmental assessments; and to
conduct necessary program support. These funds permit the
continuation of a service-wide program to correct environmental
problems, such as major improvements of storage tanks
containing petroleum and regulated substances. The program
focuses mainly on Coast Guard facilities, but also includes
third party sites where Coast Guard activities have contributed
to environmental problems.
The recommended funding level is the same as the fiscal
year 1996 enacted level, and a decrease of $4,000,000 below the
requested level. The recommendation fully funds the requested
levels for site-specific cleanup and restoration projects
($15,500,000). A table comparing the recommendation to the
budget estimate follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee
Activity estimate recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cleanup and restoration projects............ $15,500,000 $15,500,000
Environmental compliance.................... 3,834,000 2,500,000
Personnel................................... 5,666,000 3,000,000
---------------------------
Total................................... 25,000,000 21,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sites to be addressed.--The funds in this bill are
sufficient to finance the budgeted amount of $15,500,000 for
cleanup and restoration projects at specific sites. The sites
for which funds are included are as follows:
Project site Amount
Support Ctr Kodiak, AK (RCRA consent order)............. $3,200,000
Support Ctr Elizabeth City, NC (RCRA part B permit)..... 2,530,000
Air Station Cape Cod, MA (Installation restoration)..... 2,120,000
Air Station Brooklyn, NY (JP-4 fuel farm soil/
groundwater)........................................ 700,000
Agency-wide, initial assessment surveys................. 850,000
Agency-wide, aids to navigation (ATON) battery cleanup.. 4,000,000
Air Station Traverse City, MI........................... 350,000
Coast Guard Academy, CT................................. 195,000
Training Ctr Petaluma, CA............................... 185,000
Air Station Miami, FL................................... 175,000
Support Ctr Alameda, CA................................. 175,000
Air Station San Francisco, CA........................... 125,000
Group San Diego, CA..................................... 120,000
Station Depoe Bay, OR................................... 115,000
Reserve Training Ctr Yorktown, VA....................... 100,000
Station Wilmette Harbor, IL............................. 75,000
Station Neah Bay, WA.................................... 75,000
Station Humboldt Bay, CA................................ 70,000
Base Ketchikan, AK...................................... 65,000
Loran Station, Kodiak, AK............................... 50,000
Coast Guard Yard, Baltimore, MD......................... 50,000
Loran Station, Tok, AK.................................. 40,000
Loran Station, St. Paul, AK............................. 40,000
Air Station Clearwater, FL.............................. 35,000
Station Siuslaw River, OR............................... 30,000
Station Juneau, AK...................................... 30,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 15,500,000
Allocation of reductions.--The Committee expects the Coast
Guard to allocate the reduction, to the maximum extent
possible, against program administrative support and general
training activities. In this way, funds can be made available
for identified environmental compliance problems at specific
sites.
Alteration of Bridges
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... $16,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 2,000,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 16,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... +14,000,000
The bill includes funding for alteration of bridges deemed
a hazard to marine navigation pursuant to the Truman-Hobbs Act.
The Committee does not agree with the approach taken by the
103rd Congress and supported by the administration, that
highway bridges and combination rail/highway bridges should be
funded out of the Federal Highway Administration's
discretionary bridge account. This approach is unfair to some
states which, under existing highway formulas, have a more
difficult time competing for discretionary bridge grants and
are therefore less likely to apply. In addition, the purpose of
altering these bridges is to improve the safety of marine
navigation under the bridge, not to improve surface
transportation on the bridge itself. Since in some cases, there
are unsafe conditions on the waterway beneath a bridge which
has an adequate surface or structural condition, Federal-aid
highways funding is not appropriate to address the purpose of
the Truman-Hobbs program. The Coast Guard believes programs
such as alteration of bridges and boating safety grants are a
lower overall priority, and should not compete with the Coast
Guard's operating budget for resources.
The Committee recommends $16,000,000 for three bridges.
Each of the bridges for which funds are recommended is
authorized and has been issued an order to alter by the
Commandant of the Coast Guard. The Committee's specific
recommendation is as follows:
Committee
Bridge and location recommendation
Burlington, IA, Burlington Northern RR Bridge........... $2,000,000
Brunswick, GA, Sidney Lanier HW Bridge.................. 7,000,000
New Orleans, LA, Florida Avenue RR/HW Bridge............ 7,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 16,000,000
Retired Pay
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... $582,022,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 608,084,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 608,084,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... +26,062,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................................
The Committee has approved the budget estimate of
$608,084,000 for retired pay of military personnel of the Coast
Guard and the Coast Guard Reserve. Also included are payments
to members of the former Lighthouse Service and beneficiaries
pursuant to the retired serviceman's family protection plan and
survivor benefit plan, as well as payments for medical care of
retired personnel and their dependents under the Dependents
Medical Care Act. This compares to an appropriation of
$582,022,000 for fiscal year 1996, an increase of 4.5 percent.
Reserve Training
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... $62,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 65,890,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 65,890,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... +3,890,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................................
This appropriation provides for the training of qualified
individuals who are available for active duty in time of war or
national emergency or to augment regular Coast Guard forces in
the performance of peacetime missions. The program activities
fall into the following categories:
1. Initial training.--The direct costs of initial training
for three categories of non-prior service trainees.
2. Continued training.--The training of officer and
enlisted personnel.
3. Operation and maintenance of training facilities.--The
day-to-day operation and maintenance of reserve training
facilities.
4. Administration.--All administrative costs of the reserve
forces program.
The bill includes $65,890,000 for reserve training. The
amount recommended represents an increase of $3,890,000 (6
percent) above the fiscal year 1996 level and will support a
selected reserve of approximately 8,000 personnel.
Assessment for operating expenses.--The Coast Guard
testified this year that they ``assess'' the reserve training
appropriation for estimated operating and maintenance services
incurred at active duty units in support of the reserve
program. Given the small size of the reserve training
appropriation, the Committee wishes to ensure the reserves are
not assessed inappropriate charge-backs to the Coast Guard
operating budget. The Coast Guard is requested to provide a
report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no
later than December 31, 1996 describing the methodology used to
calculate such assessments.
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... $18,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 20,300,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 19,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... +1,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -1,300,000
The bill includes $19,000,000 for applied scientific
research and development, test and evaluation projects
necessary to maintain and expand the technology required for
the Coast Guard's operational and regulatory missions. Of this
amount, $5,020,000 is to be derived from the oil spill
liability trust fund. The following table summarizes the fiscal
year 1997 budget estimate and the Committee recommendation for
the various research areas:
COAST GUARD RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION
[Fiscal year 1997]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
Program area 1996 1997 House
enacted estimate recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improve Search and Rescue Capability............................... $932,000 $1,872,000 $1,872,000
--------------------------------------------
Search planning................................................ 100,000 185,000 185,000
Search process, platforms and sensors.......................... 400,000 1,245,000 1,245,000
Personnel...................................................... 432,000 442,000 442,000
============================================
Waterways Safety and Management.................................... 2,189,000 1,385,000 1,385,000
--------------------------------------------
Waterways management........................................... 400,000 0 0
Advanced vessel traffic systems/services....................... 275,000 300,000 300,000
Integrated navigation systems.................................. 450,000 150,000 150,000
Short range aids to navigation................................. 200,000 50,000 50,000
Personnel...................................................... 864,000 885,000 885,000
============================================
Marine Safety...................................................... 2,700,000 3,825,000 3,825,000
--------------------------------------------
Marine safety research......................................... 200,000 385,000 385,000
Human factors analysis......................................... 1,050,000 1,200,000 1,200,000
Fire safety for commercial vessels............................. 750,000 1,245,000 1,245,000
Personnel...................................................... 700,000 995,000 995,000
============================================
Ship Structure Committee........................................... 0 437,000 223,000
--------------------------------------------
Support for Committee.......................................... 0 400,000 186,000
Personnel...................................................... 0 37,000 37,000
============================================
Marine Environmental Protection.................................... 1,354,000 1,791,000 2,291,000
--------------------------------------------
Planning, management and training.............................. 150,000 0 0
Oil pollution response......................................... 625,000 1,075,000 1,075,000
Personnel health and safety.................................... 75,000 0 0
Port demonstration project..................................... 0 0 0
OPA90 regional grant program................................... 0 0 0
Aquatic nuisance species control............................... 0 200,000 700,000
Personnel...................................................... 504,000 516,000 516,000
============================================
Maritime Law Enforcement........................................... 1,229,000 791,000 791,000
--------------------------------------------
Surveillance................................................... 725,000 0 0
Vessel search.................................................. 0 200,000 200,000
Off the shelf technology....................................... 0 75,000 75,000
Personnel...................................................... 504,000 516,000 516,000
============================================
Servicewide Safety and Environmental Compliance.................... 2,318,000 2,652,000 2,452,000
--------------------------------------------
Cutter fire safety technology.................................. 586,000 0 0
Pollution prevention........................................... 500,000 700,000 500,000
Aviation engineering support................................... 0 0 0
Vessel loss exposure and risk analysis methodology............. 620,000 1,325,000 1,325,000
Personnel...................................................... 612,000 627,000 627,000
============================================
Human Resource Management Effectiveness............................ 100,000 147,000 147,000
--------------------------------------------
Training techniques and technologies........................... 100,000 0 0
Staffing standards development................................. 0 0 0
Personnel...................................................... 0 147,000 147,000
============================================
Command, Control, Computers and Intelligence....................... 928,000 1,014,000 928,000
--------------------------------------------
Information systems............................................ 280,000 0 0
Advanced communications systems................................ 0 350,000 264,000
Personnel...................................................... 648,000 664,000 664,000
============================================
Technology Base.................................................... 500,000 1,600,000 550,000
--------------------------------------------
Future technology assessment................................... 0 400,000 0
Coast Guard standard cost model................................ 0 100,000 100,000
Select projects................................................ 300,000 800,000 200,000
Personnel...................................................... 200,000 300,000 250,000
============================================
R&D Personnel, Program Support, and Operations..................... 5,750,000 4,786,000 4,536,000
--------------------------------------------
Admin/support personnel and related costs...................... 2,850,000 2,571,000 2,321,000
Support and operations......................................... 1,600,000 1,685,000 1,685,000
R&D management info system development......................... 450,000 250,000 250,000
Modernization of F&SFD test facilities......................... 850,000 280,000 280,000
============================================
Total appropriation........................................ 18,000,000 20,300,000 19,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ship Structure Committee.--The Committee continues to
believe that much of the Coast Guard's support for the ship
structure committee is not needed, given financial constraints.
Some of the planned activities include development of robotics
technology and weldable primers for shipyard construction;
development of alternative stiffening systems for double skin
tankers; and development of risk assessment methods associated
with the use of polymer matrix composites. The Committee
believes these activities can be sufficiently carried out by
the shipbuilding and boatbuilding industries. The
recommendation for this program is $223,000, a reduction of
$214,000 from the budget request. Last year the Committee
recommended no funding for this program.
Servicewide safety and environmental compliance.--The
recommended level holds funds for the pollution prevention
activity to the fiscal year 1996 level. Overall funding
recommended is 5.8 percent above fiscal year 1996.
Advanced communications systems.--The reduction of $86,000
is due to budget constraints.
Technology base.--The recommendation provides $550,000, an
increase of $50,000 (10 percent) over the amount provided for
fiscal year 1996, but a reduction of $1,050,000 from the budget
request. The Committee continues to believe such activities are
of a low priority.
Ballast water management program.--Of the funds provided
under ``aquatic nuisance species control'', $700,000 is only
for the ballast water management program.
Research and development personnel.--The reduction of
$250,000 is due to budget constraints. This reduction in
management support is consistent with the reductions in program
activities in the bill.
Boat Safety
(Aquatic Resources Trust Fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... $20,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.......................................
Recommended in the bill................................. 35,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... +15,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... +35,000,000
The Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and the
Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971, as amended, provide for the
transfer of highway trust fund revenue derived from the motor
boat fuel tax, excise taxes on sport fishing equipment, and
import duties on fishing tackle and yachts to the aquatic
resources trust fund. The Secretary of the Treasury estimates
the amounts to be so transferred and appropriations are
authorized from the fund for recreational boating safety
assistance and other programs as authorized by the Federal Boat
Safety Act of 1971, as amended, and Public Law 98-369 (the
Deficit Reduction Act of 1984). These funds are used primarily
to provide grants to states to help enforce boating safety laws
and to expand boating education programs.
The bill includes an appropriation of $35,000,000 for the
boat safety program. When combined with an additional
$10,000,000 in permanent indefinite appropriations from the
Clean Vessel Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-587), total program
funding of $45,000,000 is provided for fiscal year 1997. This
is an increase of 50 percent over the total funding of
$30,000,000 provided for fiscal year 1996. This program
provides between 15 and 20 percent of total boating safety
expenditures when state and federal resources are combined.
Once again this year, the Committee cannot support the
Coast Guard's proposal to convert this program to mandatory
spending. According to an April 1993 study by the National
Transportation Safety Board, recreational boating accidents
result in the highest number of transportation fatalities
annually after highway accidents. Over 900 people are killed
each year in boating accidents, and over 350,000 are injured,
more than 40 percent of which require treatment beyond first
aid. The number of boats, especially high speed boats, is
increasing each year. The Safety Board still includes boating
safety on their list of ``most wanted'' safety improvements.
Federal support and direction will be needed to ensure
implementation of initiatives raised in the Safety Board's
study as well as to continue other boating safety activities.
Loss of authorized funding.--In this year's hearing, the
Coast Guard stated a major concern that unless the boating
safety program is funded at the authorized level, those
resources are lost forever, because a provision in the
authorization statute requires they be reallocated to the sport
fish restoration program and spent in the same fiscal year. The
Committee acknowledges that this feature of the boating safety
grants program is unlike the financing of other trust fund
safety programs. In those cases, as with general fund
authorizations, funds not appropriated remain authorized for
appropriation in a future fiscal year. The Committee notes that
the boating safety program is up for reauthorization in fiscal
year 1998, and encourages the department and the Coast Guard to
recommend elimination of this provision in the statute. Such a
change would prevent the diversion of funds intended for
boating safety programs to sport fishing activities.
Discretionary grant program.--The bill includes language
providing that $5,000,000 of the total amount is available only
for issuance of discretionary grants to states and other
appropriate entities for the targeted improvement of boating
safety across the country. At the present time, all boating
safety grant funds are distributed by formula. Perhaps because
of this, the Coast Guard is not active in using grant funds to
provide incentives for poorer-performing states to make
improvements in their boating programs. This is in contrast to
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Federal
Transit Administration, and the Federal Aviation
Administration, all of which use their discretionary grants
programs to facilitate improvements in safety. The Committee
believes it is time for the Coast Guard to take a more active
role in promoting and shaping improvements in boating safety in
the various states. The boating public looks to the Coast Guard
for leadership in boating safety, and this is one way the Coast
Guard can demonstrate that leadership. With the recommended
increase of 50 percent in total funding, the time is right to
begin a discretionary grant element of the overall program in
fiscal year 1997, since formula funds will increase without
regard to creation of the discretionary grants program. The
Committee directs the Coast Guard to initiate a rulemaking to
determine, through public input, appropriate criteria for the
discretionary grants program, in consultation with the states
and other interested parties. In addition, the Coast Guard is
to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations, not later than March 15, 1997, outlining the
objectives of the discretionary grant program and the criteria
upon which decisions will be made.
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Summary of Fiscal Year 1997 Program
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible
for the safety and development of civil aviation and the
evolution of a national system of airports. Most of the
activities of the FAA will be funded with direct appropriations
in fiscal year 1997. The grants-in-aid for airports program,
however, will be financed under contract authority with the
program level established by a limitation on obligations
contained in the accompanying bill. The bill assumes
reinstatement of the aviation ticket tax and other related
aviation taxes in time to prevent shutdown or significant
curtailment of FAA's trust fund-financed activities.
The total recommended program level for the FAA for fiscal
year 1997 amounts to $8,155,000,000, including a $1,300,000,000
limitation on the use of contract authority. This is
$52,331,000 (1 percent) above the President's request level and
$61,343,000 below the fiscal year 1996 enacted level. The
following table summarizes the fiscal year 1996 program levels,
the fiscal year 1997 program requests, and the Committee's
recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended in
1996 enacted\1\ 1997 estimate the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations............................................. $4,645,712,000 $4,918,269,000 $4,900,000,000
User fees.............................................. ................. -150,000,000 -30,000,000
Facilities and equipment............................... 1,934,883,000 1,788,700,000 1,800,000,000
Research, engineering, and development................. 185,698,000 195,700,000 185,000,000
Grants-in-aid for airports \2\......................... 1,450,000,000 1,350,000,000 1,300,000,000
Aircraft purchase loan guarantee program............... 50,000 ................. .................
--------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................ 8,216,343,000 8,102,669,000 8,155,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reductions to comply with working capital fund and awards provisions, and Omnibus Consolidated
Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 and 1996 rescission in facilities and equipment.
\2\ Limitation on obligations.
Aviation Trust Fund Spending
This year the Committee has had to make a judgment about
whether the aviation taxes used to finance the majority of
FAA's programs will be available to provide financial resources
during fiscal year 1997. These taxes expired on December 31,
1995. During fiscal year 1996, the FAA has been utilizing the
airport and airway trust fund's unobligated balance. Although
this balance is sufficient to finance FAA activities throughout
fiscal year 1996, it is estimated that the trust fund will be
depleted in January 1997. Trust fund resources finance
approximately 75 percent of the FAA's budget, including the
entire capital improvement program, airport development grants,
and half of the agency's operating budget. Although some have
suggested that user fees could be collected in place of the
aviation taxes, the FAA has only requested authority to collect
$150,000,000 in new user fees next year--a fraction of total
required trust fund spending. It is clear that without
restoration of the aviation taxes, the FAA would not be able to
carry out its responsibilities during the coming year.
If the FAA's budget were financed entirely from the general
fund, the agency could proceed to operate its programs without
disruption, and without the fear of a systemwide shutdown
should the aviation taxes not be reinstated. However, since the
Committee is not allocated general fund budget authority for
the airport development (AIP) program, such a recommendation
would by necessity include no funds for that important program.
Secondly, such levels of funding from the general fund are not
authorized, and run counter to the objectives of the Congress
in establishing the airport and airway trust fund. The
Committee realizes this is the only course which, at the
present time, could guarantee a full budget for the FAA next
year. However, given the issues presented by this approach, the
Committee has decided to assume timely resumption of the
aviation taxes, prior to January 1997.
National Civil Aviation Review Commission
The bill includes $2,400,000 for activities of a National
Civil Aviation Review Commission. On October 30, 1986, Public
Law 99-591 established a Presidentially-appointed Aviation
Safety Commission. This panel released a final report in April
1988, and made several recommendations to improve aviation
safety in this country. It has now been a decade since issuance
of this report, and serious concerns have once again arisen
over the adequacy of aviation safety in this country. Although
FAA statistics show that, in the aggregate, the U.S. has the
safest aviation system in the world, a number of accidents,
incidents, Inspector General reports, and media investigations
over the past three years raise questions about certain aspects
of FAA's regulatory oversight in the area of safety. For
example, the DOT Inspector General has been warning about the
use of fraudulent or undocumented aircraft parts for many
years, but the FAA has been slow to act. FAA inspectors have
inadequate training and do not utilize management systems which
would enable them to focus resources on the highest safety
needs or ensure effective follow-up action on past
deficiencies. These problems have been made worse over the past
few years due to increased air travel and the emergence of a
large number of ``start-up'' air carriers, often operating with
slim financial margins and aggressive pricing.
Secondly, over the past eighteen months the Department has
put forth the view that the FAA's long-term budget requirements
are too great to be satisfied through the annual appropriations
process. The agency forecasts the need for significant annual
increases in its operating budget due to incorporation of newer
and more costly technologies, additional staffing resulting
from increased air travel, and higher maintenance requirements
for air traffic control equipment as the system expands and
equipment ages. Although the administration supports moving the
FAA out of the appropriations process through collection of
user fees, this proposal has a number of serious problems. To
date, however, there has been no complete and independent audit
of the agency's most likely budget requirements, and the FAA
itself has decided not to update the 1995 financial projections
on which the current policy decisions are being made.
Lastly, the FAA continues to experience schedule slippage
and cost overruns on its major development programs, even as
the agency is working to implement the major new changes in
acquisition polices and procedures provided in the Department
of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
1996. This is especially troublesome given the FAA's declining
budget requests for facilities and equipment over the past two
years. Cost growth in the past occurred in an expanding budget
environment, thereby lessening its impact. In the future, cost
overruns will have a more harmful effect, because the budgetary
competition is more severe.
Therefore, the Committee believes it is time for a
comprehensive, independent review of FAA safety oversight,
financial prospects and options, and acquisition policy. The
bill includes a general provision (Sec. 338) which appropriates
$2,400,000 for activities of the Commission, to include an
independent and objective contract audit of FAA's long-range
financial requirements. The Committee will work with the
authorizing committee over the coming weeks to establish a
legislative authorization for this critical effort. The
Committee believes that this review will set the stage for new
aviation policy directions in the next century, with the
objective of providing a more effective and stable FAA and a
greater degree of confidence among the flying public in the
safety of our aviation system.
Additional Funds For Safety And Capacity Enhancement Programs
The bill includes a total of $139,584,000, above the budget
estimate, for new operational activities, air traffic control
equipment and systems, site preparation and installation, and
research to improve aviation safety and airway capacity around
the country.
Once again this year, in setting priorities for this bill
the Committee has placed the strongest emphasis on maintaining,
and improving wherever possible, transportation safety around
the nation. Because of significant concerns over the past year
regarding the state of aviation safety, the Committee feels
strongly that additional funding emphasis should be placed on
new safety-related capabilities and equipment. Among other
things, this equipment will provide controllers, pilots, and
airline dispatchers a more accurate and up-to-date
understanding of dangerous weather conditions and provide a
clearer picture of potential conflicts between aircraft
maneuvering on airport surfaces. The bill includes additional
funds to maintain the schedule for satellite navigation systems
development, which promises improvement in both aviation safety
and systemwide capacity.
The programs for which the Committee recommends additional
funding, and the associated increases above requested levels,
are as follows:
Program Name Amount
FAA Operations:
Aviation safety reporting system.................... $1,000,000
Facilities and Equipment:
Wide area augmentation system for GPS (WAAS)........ 34,000,000
National satellite test bed for GPS................. 11,500,000
Surface movement advisor build II................... 2,000,000
Spectrum auction impact............................. 45,000,000
Ground to air replacement radios.................... 20,000,000
Loran-C upgrades.................................... 5,650,000
NAS equipment installation.......................... 5,100,000
Automated weather observing system (AWOS)........... 1,000,000
Research, Engineering, and Development:
Local area augmentation system for GPS (LAAS)....... 5,427,000
Aviation weather research........................... 6,589,000
Human factors safety research....................... 2,318,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total........................................... $139,584,000
The Committee directs the FAA to pursue these improvements
aggressively as a high priority. While the administration has
proposed substantial user fees to help resolve problems in the
FAA's budget, the Committee believes that even within existing
resources, the highest priority should be placed on replacement
of aging and antiquated safety equipment. According to
departmental and agency officials, the air traffic control
system is becoming increasingly debilitated by old, antiquated
equipment. While much of the old equipment is scheduled for
replacement over the next two or three years with systems
already under contract, the Committee's recommended funding
level would accelerate efforts to revitalize the technological
state of the ATC system in this country by providing additional
funds to get systems procured and installed in the field more
quickly than under current schedules. Included in the bill are
funds to begin immediately installing air traffic safety
equipment which is currently warehoused due to lack of funds.
Operations
(Including Airport and Airway Trust Fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... $4,645,712,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 4,918,269,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 4,900,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... +254,288,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -18,269,000
This appropriation provides funds for the operation,
maintenance, communications, and logistical support of the air
traffic control and air navigation systems. It also covers
administrative and managerial costs for the FAA's regulatory,
airports, medical, engineering and development programs.
The operations appropriation includes the following major
activities: (1) operation on a 24-hour daily basis of a
national air traffic system; (2) establishment and maintenance
of a national system of aids to navigation; (3) establishment
and surveillance of civil air regulations to assure safety in
aviation; (4) development of standards, rules and regulations
governing the physical fitness of airmen as well as the
administration of an aviation medical research program; (5)
administration of the research and development program; and (6)
administration of the federal grants-in-aid program for airport
construction.
Committee Recommendation
The Committee recommends $4,900,000,000 for FAA operations,
an increase of $254,288,000 (5.5 percent) above the level
provided for fiscal year 1996. This compares to a level of
$4,918,269,000 in the President's budget request. The
recommendation fully funds the request for air traffic
controllers and aviation safety inspectors.
User fees.--The bill assumes the collection of $30,000,000
in additional user fees, and specifies that those fees may only
be collected for services to aircraft flying in U.S.-controlled
airspace but without takeoff or landing points in the United
States. These ``overflight'' fees have the support of FAA and
the administration. Language is included in the bill allowing
the fees to be credited to the appropriation as offsetting
collections, and reducing the general fund appropriation on a
dollar for dollar basis as the fees are received and credited.
The Committee has not approved the extensive and
unspecified fee proposal in the President's budget request. The
Committee is not generally supportive of new fees based on
current evidence, and believes that much more justification is
required before the FAA could transition to an all user fee-
financed system. Many of the fees proposed by the
administration appear to resemble not fees, but taxes. The FAA
even admitted in this year's budget hearing that there is no
cost accounting system in the agency today which provides an
adequate basis for allocating costs fairly among system users--
a key test for delineating fees from taxes. With the authority
requested by the administration, the FAA could easily become a
ratemaking agency once again, with the administrator spending
significant time and energy negotiating fee rates among the
various sectors of industry. This is time better spent on
improving safety and system capacity. Furthermore, since some
of the proposed fees disproportionately harm one industry
sector relative to another, these ratemaking decisions could
upset the delicate competitive balance in the airline industry
today, undermining the high level of competition which resulted
from airline deregulation.
The Committee is also concerned that, where aviation user
fees have been instituted around the world, cost control has
been very difficult. Until these and other concerns are
addressed, the Committee cannot support the extensive
imposition of aviation user fees.
A breakdown of the fiscal year 1996 enacted level, the
fiscal year 1997 budget estimate, and the Committee
recommendation by budget activity is as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Budget activity --------------------------------------------------------
1996 enacted 1997 estimate 1997 recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air traffic services................................... $3,623,132,000 $3,827,137,000 $3,816,471,000
Aviation regulation and certification.................. 437,848,000 487,911,000 487,289,000
Civil aviation security................................ 67,453,000 71,921,000 71,921,000
Airports............................................... 41,328,000 45,367,000 43,367,000
Research and acquisition............................... 75,781,000 78,034,000 78,034,000
Commercial space transportation........................ 5,757,000 6,169,000 6,049,000
Administration......................................... 324,809,000 332,499,000 329,865,000
Staff offices.......................................... 67,624,000 69,230,000 66,430,000
Account-wide adjustments............................... 0 0 +574,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................ 4,643,732,000 4,918,269,000 4,900,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee's specific recommendations by budget activity
are discussed below.
Air Traffic Services
The Committee recommends $3,816,471,000 for air traffic
services, an increase of $193,339,000 (5.3 percent) above the
fiscal year 1996 enacted level. The recommendation provides a
net increase of 250 additional air traffic controllers, of
which 200 are expected to be assigned to FAA's en route
centers. The recommendation also provides an increase of
$68,038,000 (8.9 percent) in field maintenance. The Committee
believes these increases are needed as air traffic activity
continues to increase, and as FAA struggles to maintain both
old and modernized air traffic control systems simultaneously.
Adjustments to the budget estimate are as follows:
Program Change
Air Traffic Subactivity:
Air traffic details................................. -$3,500,000
DOL wage determinations............................. -500,000
Aviation safety reporting system.................... +1,000,000
ATM facility lease, Herndon, VA (transfer from F&E). +3,300,000
Systems Maintenance Subactivity:
Air traffic systems maintenance training (transfer). -2,366,000
Leased Telecommunications Subactivity:
WAAS support (transfer to F&E)...................... -8,600,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total........................................... -10,666,000
Air traffic details.--The FAA estimates that approximately
450 air traffic controllers (about 3 percent of the workforce)
are currently detailed outside the controller workforce (CWF)
and not available for controlling air traffic. These details
cost the FAA an estimated $33,750,000 each year. The Committee
believes the agency should not have so many controllers on
detail in overhead positions outside the CWF, at the same time
the agency is requesting large increases in controller staffing
to handle air traffic requirements. The Committee's
recommendation reduces these detail positions by approximately
ten percent, resulting in a savings of $3,500,000.
Department of Labor wage determinations for level one
towers.--Several years ago, Congress and the FAA worked
together to establish the contracting out program for level one
towers. The DOT Inspector General, the national performance
review, the FAA, and the Congress all agreed that this program
could result in significant cost savings without affecting
safety or efficiency. Last year, however, the Committee was
advised that the Department of Labor was preventing the FAA
from realizing these savings by establishing both retroactive
and prospective wage determinations, even though the Service
Contract Act allows waivers from those provisions. This was
causing lengthy delays and raising program costs. The FAA asked
the Department of Labor to waive the requirements of that
process, but their request was denied. At the initiative of the
Senate, Congress directed FAA to cease conducting these wage
determinations; however, the agency ignored that direction, and
has instead been negotiating with the Department of Labor over
an acceptable solution. The Committee finds this situation
unacceptable. The FAA testified this year that wage
determinations raise costs in the contracted out towers by an
average of sixty percent, undermining the cost savings which
are the primary reason for the program. Therefore, the bill
assumes FAA receives from the Department of Labor a waiver from
meeting the requirements of the Service Contract Act at all
contract tower locations where there are five or fewer
employees. Because freeing the FAA from this restraint will
result in lower cost operations, the Committee also recommends
a reduction of $500,000.
Aviation safety reporting system.--For many years, the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration has managed the
aviation safety reporting system (ASRS). The ASRS provides a
means for pilots, air traffic controllers, and other users of
the airway system to file safety-related incident reports
anonymously. NASA collects and analyzes the data, and produces
regular reports on the most relevant safety issues. Ignoring
the recommendations of a 1994 study by the National Academy of
Public Administration, the FAA's fiscal year 1997 budget still
underfunds this critical safety program. The Committee
recommends $3,400,000, an increase of $1,000,000.
ATM facility lease, Herndon, VA.(transfer)--The Committee's
recommendation transfers $3,300,000 to the operations
appropriation from facilities and equipment in order to more
accurately reflect the nature of the costs being incurred. FAA
has been including costs to lease the air traffic management
facility in Herndon, Virginia in the F&E budget even though the
facility has been in operation for some time. Leases for
operational facilities such as this one should be included in
the operating budget of the agency.
Air traffic systems maintenance training (transfer).--The
Committee believes that training costs should be included under
``human resource management'' in order to provide stronger
management control and oversight. The FAA has instead allowed
managers of the major lines of business to include
supplementary funds for training in their own budgets. The
Committee recommends a transfer of $2,366,000 from this budget
activity to human resource management.
Wide area augmentation system support (transfer).--The
Committee transfers the $8,600,000 budgeted for wide area
augmentation system (WAAS) telecommunications support from the
operating budget to facilities and equipment. This system is
still under development. All costs should be borne by the F&E
appropriation at this time.
Weather observations, El Paso International Airport.--
During the FAA hearing this year, several Members expressed
concern over the reliability of weather reporting performed by
the automated surface observing system (ASOS) in the absence of
contract weather observers. During this hearing, it was noted
that some airports may be experiencing false readings due to
construction or meteorological activities. The Committee is
especially concerned about false readings that have occurred at
El Paso International Airport (EPIA). The Commitee expects the
FAA to reinstate contract weather observers at EPIA and
continue to provide contract weather observation at this
facility.
Milwaukee General Mitchell Airport.--The Committee is aware
that General Mitchell International Airport in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin has experienced power outages to the ASR-9 radar
system. Due to public safety concerns, the Committee directs
the FAA to take necessary measures to determine the cause of
these outages. To help ensure that recent power outages do not
recur, the Committee expects the FAA to consider options for
correcting the problem, including installing a power
conditioning system, and report back to the Committee in a
timely manner with actions taken.
aviation regulation and certification
The Committee recommends $487,289,000 for aviation
regulation and certification, a reduction of $622,000 from the
budget request but an increase of $49,441,000 (11.3 percent)
above the fiscal year 1996 enacted level. The recommendation
funds 5,295 staff years, an increase of 367 above fiscal year
1996. The bill fully funds the requested employment increases
for clerical/administrative support (+152), airworthiness
inspectors (+54), airline operations inspectors (+100),
certification engineers and pilots (+75), and manufacturing
certification inspectors (+29). The Committee sees evidence
that this additional staffing is needed, even considering the
significant increases in staffing provided over the past two
years.
Office of rulemaking.--The Committee recommends a reduction
of $622,000 in the office of rulemaking. Over the past year,
the FAA-commissioned ``Challenge 2000'' study team took a
comprehensive look at FAA's regulatory process and found
significant inefficiencies. The FAA requested $3,464,000 for
this office in fiscal year 1997, an increase of 9.7 percent.
Given the findings of the ``Challenge 2000'' study and the
Committee's view that only essential regulations should be
undertaken, the Committee recommends $2,842,000, a 10 percent
reduction from the fiscal year 1996 level.
Expanded parameter flight data recorders.--The Committee
does not believe the FAA has worked as diligently as possible
to encourage the retrofit of expanded parameter flight data
recorders (FDRs) into existing aircraft. The National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) testified before the
Committee this year that these improved FDRs provide critical
data to the NTSB in their investigation of aviation crashes and
incidents. Therefore, the Committee directs FAA to work closely
with NTSB over the coming year to develop a plan for the
retrofit of expanded parameter FDRs into commercial aircraft.
Flight and duty time regulations.--The Committee directs
the FAA to closely examine the impact of its proposed new
flight and duty time regulations on part 135 on-demand air
charter operators. In particular, the Committee is concerned
about the effect of these new regulations on those operators
providing critical transportation services such as emergency
medical services, organ donor/procurement flights, emergency
responses to natural disasters, just-in-time critical
transportation for business emergencies, and carriage of
lifesaving vaccines, drugs, and medical professionals and
specialists. The Committee is concerned that the advanced
notice requirements and duty time restrictions could hamper
safety and endanger lives if pilots are unable to respond
quickly in an emergency. Therefore, the Committee directs the
FAA to review this issue thoroughly, and ensure in its
promulgation of these regulations that safety is not
compromised in any way.
Safety of ATR aircraft.--The Committee requests the FAA to
further review the safety and airworthiness of the ATR-47 and
ATR-72, to make certain the aircraft are safe to fly in the
conditions in which they are being flown, and to report back to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by December
1, 1996.
civil aviation security
The Committee recommends $71,921,000 for civil aviation
security, the same as the budget request. The recommendation
represents an increase of $4,468,000 (6.6 percent) above the
level provided for fiscal year 1996.
Explosive detection canine programs.--The Committee is
concerned that there may exist duplicative and unnecessary
canine explosive detection programs in the Federal Government.
Furthermore, universal guidelines and standards are not
available for these various programs. Therefore, the Committee
directs the FAA to establish a joint canine explosives
detection program with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and
Firearms (BATF) at either Washington National or Dulles
International Airports, or both, in order to foster cooperation
between the two explosives detecting canine programs. The FAA
and BATF shall submit a joint report on the results of this
activity to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
by April 1, 1997.
airports
The Committee recommends $43,367,000 for administration of
the FAA airports program, an increase of $2,039,000 (4.9
percent) above the fiscal year 1996 enacted level. The budget
included $45,367,000, an increase of 9.8 percent. The Committee
recommendation holds staffing to the fiscal year 1996 level.
The budget included an additional 26 staff years for this
program. Given the declining resource levels for the airport
grants program and no new programmatic initiatives proposed by
the FAA, the Committee believes additional staffing for this
office is not justified.
Expanded East Coast Plan.--The Committee directs the FAA to
work with affected representatives from the New York-New Jersey
region, including appropriate citizens groups, to develop the
most feasible and cost-effective noise mitigation solution for
the expanded East Coast plan. Although the FAA promulgated a
final environmental impact statement in 1995 for the expanded
East Coast plan, this has not satisfactorily addressed the
concerns of citizens in the State of New Jersey, and further
analysis of noise mitigation remedies seems appropriate.
research and acquisition
The Committee recommends $78,034,000 and 697 staff years
for research and acquisition, the same as the budget request.
The recommendation represents an increase of $2,253,000 (3
percent) and one staff year above the fiscal year 1996 enacted
levels. This activity finances the planning, management, and
coordination of FAA's research and acquisition programs.
commercial space transportation
The Committee recommends $6,049,000 for the Office of
Commercial Space Transportation (OCST), a reduction of $120,000
below the budget request. The fiscal year 1996 enacted level
for this office was $5,757,000. The Committee notes the large
number of vacancies in the licensing and safety division, as
well as the large number of support staff in this office.
Because of this, the Committee believes the additional three
positions requested in the fiscal year 1997 request are not
adequately justified. Staffing levels are held at the fiscal
year 1996 level.
The Committee views with concern the lack of progress made
by the Office of Commercial Space Transportation in the
issuance of regulations for launch site operators. Launch
operations are to begin at three of the nation's five
spaceports in less than twelve months, yet proposed regulations
for launch site operators have not yet been published. The
continued lack of such regulations will have an adverse impact
upon both the nation's spaceports and the commercial launch and
satellite industries they support. The Committee therefore
requires that OCST issue launch site operator regulations as
soon as possible, but not later than ninety days after
enactment of this Act.
The Committee is also concerned over the allocation of
resources with OCST. The primary duty of this office, as
provided in the Commercial Space Transportation Act of 1984, is
to license launches and launch site operators. However, a
disproportionate amount of the resources in OCST, including
personnel and travel funding, are being allocated to non-
licensing functions. The Committee therefore directs the office
to shift its resources in fiscal year 1997 to provide a larger
share of overall staffing to licensing activities.
administration
The Committee recommends $329,865,000 for administration,
an increase of $5,056,000 (1.6 percent) above the fiscal year
1996 enacted level. The President's budget requested
$332,499,000. The recommendation includes $78,380,000 for the
FAA to reimburse the Department of Labor for workers'
compensation claims. This is the same as the budget estimate.
Specific adjustments to the budget estimate are discussed
below.
Air traffic systems maintenance training (transfer).--The
recommendation to transfer $2,366,000 to this activity was
previously discussed, under ``Air Traffic Services''.
Mid-America aviation resource consortium.--The Committee
expects the FAA to continue the agency's commitment to the Mid-
American Aviation Resource Consortium (MARC) in Minnesota, and
has included $1,700,000 in the bill for this purpose. By all
accounts, MARC has been a great success--training en route
controllers in a cost-effective manner, increasing the number
of minority and women controllers, and assisting the FAA in
training controllers, among other things, on new equipment. The
Committee urges the FAA and MARC to work together on developing
a long-term plan for training en route controllers. These funds
are to be used in Minnesota to support the air traffic
controller training program and to continue research for the
FAA. Since funds were already budgeted to train these students
at the FAA's own in-house facility, the Committee's
recommendation does not provide increased funding, but
redirects a portion of the planned work to the MARC activity.
Personnel system streamlining.--The budget request includes
$52,230,000 for the FAA to administer its human resource
management system, including conduct of staffing analyses,
career planning activities, recruitment, pay and benefits
administration, and labor relations oversight and management.
Given the streamlined personnel systems being designed now by
the FAA pursuant to the Department of Transportation
Appropriations Act, 1996, the Committee believes some
efficiencies in program administration are available. For
example, the FAA no longer has to follow many of the lengthy
and detailed rules, procedures, and guidelines of the Office of
Personnel Management which apply to the civilian workforce
generally. The Committee recommends a reduction of 10 percent
in this activity.
staff offices
The Committee recommends $66,430,000 for certain
headquarters staff offices funded in this budget activity, a
reduction of $1,194,000 (1.8 percent) below the fiscal year
1996 enacted level. The President's budget included
$69,230,000, an increase of 2.4 percent. Specific adjustments
to the President's budget are discussed below.
Workers compensation program oversight.--The Committee's
recommendation provides $200,000 in funding, not included in
the request, for more intensive monitoring of long-term workers
compensation cases, similar to a program instituted by the U.S.
Postal Service. The FAA has 3,497 former employees receiving
workers compensation, including 1,158 who are at least 60 years
old. These mandatory payments impact the FAA's budget
particularly hard, relative to other federal agencies. For
example, an air traffic controller's average workers
compensation payment is $39,000, which is 73% more than the
government-wide average of $22,500. By comparison, government-
wide, civil service retirement costs federal agencies
approximately $18,800 per person. FAA's fiscal year 1997 budget
for workers compensation is $78,380,000--enough to hire an
additional 1,000 controllers above the levels in the
President's budget. The increase alone for fiscal year 1997 is
$2,833,000 (+3.8%). The recommendation provides short-term
resources to try to lower these costs, which should pay
dividends in two years, when the Department of Labor's fiscal
year 1997 workers compensation bills are submitted to the FAA
for reimbursement. The increase provides enough resources for
the FAA to establish a small office (5 staff years), or
alternately, to conduct the work by contract.
Headquarters staffing.--The 584 staff years budgeted for
FAA headquarters appears excessive, based upon a review of
specific position listings. The Committee reduces this by 5
percent (29 staff years), resulting in savings of $2,000,000.
In distributing these reductions, the Committee directs that no
reductions be allocated against FAA's overseas offices,
including those in London, Brussels and Singapore, since these
offices already sustained significant reductions specific to
overseas offices in fiscal year 1996.
Foreign affairs administrative support increase.--Each
year, the FAA pays the Department of State for their
administrative support of FAA's overseas offices. In fiscal
year 1996, the Commerce-State-Justice Appropriations Act
required the Department of State to use a new formula in
calculating these assessments, which requires them to charge
agencies the fully allocated cost. Since submission of the
budget, the FAA's estimate of required funding in fiscal year
1997 for foreign affairs administrative support has declined by
$1,000,000 due to more recent estimates. These funds are no
longer needed by the FAA in the coming year.
Accountwide Adjustments
The Committee recommends accountwide adjustments resulting
in a net increase of $574,000 above the budget estimate. These
adjustments are discussed below.
Permanent change of station moves.--According to the DOT
Inspector General, FAA's controls over ``return rights''
permanent change of station (PCS) moves within the continental
United States is very weak. For example, even though return
rights are designed to give priority to federal employees
stationed overseas who want to return to the continental United
States, FAA has been using about 70 percent of these high-
priority PCS moves to move people from within the continental
U.S. to Washington, D.C. and Oklahoma City. In addition, the
FAA has never fully realized savings from recommendations made
years ago in the home sale relocation service. The Committee
now understands that FAA has established a working group to
study areas of possible savings in administration of PCS moves.
The recommended reduction of $2,700,000 assumes that through
the efforts of this working group, FAA can reduce costs to
$40,000 per move, down from estimated fiscal year 1997 cost of
$48,859. The Committee believes much of this could be realized
from more judicious use of the home sale service.
Pay incentives.--After the fiscal year 1997 budget request
was submitted, the FAA announced a new pay incentive program
for personnel in certain hard-to-staff air traffic facilities.
This decision resulted in a significant amount of unbudgeted
costs which the FAA has now committed to pay its employees.
Given this commitment, without appropriation of these funds,
FAA will have to reprogram other funds from equipment
maintenance, controller hiring, or other areas. This would
cause disruption to those activities, and possibly delay in
implementation of the new pay incentives. The Committee
recommendation fully funds that initiative for fiscal year
1997, an increase of $15,300,000 above the budget estimate.
OST reimbursables.--For fiscal year 1997, the FAA is
budgeting $8,500,000 for reimbursables to the Office of the
Secretary of Transportation. Reimbursable agreements are
documents signed by the agency at the request of OST, where the
agencies agree to be assessed for initiatives perceived to be
of common benefit to the whole department. This includes such
things as ``National Transportation System outreach'', the OST
diversity education program, the DOT newsletter, and GPS
oversight. Many of these activities appear to provide little or
no benefit to the FAA. Given budget constraints, the Committee
believes FAA's contribution to all of these activities is no
longer affordable. The recommended level allows $7,500,000, a
reduction of 11.7 percent.
National airspace system (NAS) handoff.--The President's
budget requests an additional $90,000,000 in fiscal year 1997
to operate and maintain new NAS systems and equipment. The
Committee's detailed review of each of these items raises
questions over the justification for some elements of the
request. For example, FAA requests $605,000 to support ``high
visibility programs'' including the Potomac, Atlanta, and
Northern California metroplex facilities. However, none of
these facilities are planned for commissioning during fiscal
year 1997, so these funds are clearly premature. The Committee
understands that new NAS systems are being commissioned, and
therefore the bill includes the large majority of this
increase. The recommendation provides $81,174,000, a reduction
of 9.8 percent from the budget estimate, but significantly more
to maintain new systems than the agency has for the current
year.
``Other'' travel.--This account funds travel for
conferences, meetings, and similar activities. Given the travel
issues discovered this year by the Inspector General and a
declining workforce, the Committee believes this category of
travel should be going down. However, the budget includes an
increase of 6.7 percent (from $16,638,000 to $17,757,000). The
recommended level of $16,007,000 represents a reduction of 3.8
percent.
Advisory committees.--The recommendation of $353,400 holds
these costs to approximately the fiscal year 1996 level of
$340,200. The President's budget requested $803,400.
bill language
Manned auxiliary flight service stations.--The Committee
bill includes the limitation requested in the President's
budget prohibiting funds from being used to operate a manned
auxiliary flight service station in the contiguous United
States. The FAA budget includes no funding to operate such
stations during fiscal year 1997.
Second career training program.--Once again this year, the
Committee bill includes a prohibition on the use of funds for
the second career training program. This prohibition has been
in annual appropriations Acts for many years, and is included
in the President's budget request.
Sunday premium pay.--The bill retains a provision begun in
fiscal year 1995 which prohibits the FAA from paying Sunday
premium pay except in those cases where the individual actually
worked on a Sunday. The statute governing Sunday premium pay (5
U.S.C. 5546(a)) is very clear: ``An employee who performs work
during a regularly scheduled 8-hour period of service which is
not overtime work as defined by section 5542(a) of this title a
part of which is performed on Sunday is entitled to * * *
premium pay at a rate equal to 25 percent of his rate of basic
pay.'' Disregarding the plain meaning of the statute and
previous Comptroller General decisions, however, in Armitage v.
United States, the Federal Circuit Court held in 1993 that
employees need not actually perform work on a Sunday to receive
premium pay. The FAA was required immediately to provide back
pay totaling $37,000,000 for time scheduled but not actually
worked between November 1986 and July 1993. Without this
provision, the FAA would be liable for significant unfunded
liabilities, to be financed by the agency's annual operating
budget. This provision is identical to that in effect for
fiscal years 1995 and 1996, and as requested by the
administration in the fiscal year 1997 President's budget.
Passenger manifests.--The bill continues the limitation
(Sec. 316) contained in previous appropriations Acts
prohibiting the Department of Transportation from issuing a
final rule on an international passenger manifest program that
only applies to U.S. carriers. The Department has issued an
advance notice of proposed rulemaking which would require U.S.
airlines to compile manifests for international flights that
include the name of the passenger, the name of a next of kin
and an emergency contact number. The Committee believes that if
the Department anticipates that this regulation will be
beneficial to U.S. citizens flying internationally, then it
should apply to both U.S. and foreign flag carriers. The
Committee believes that imposing such a regulation only on U.S.
airlines could provide a competitive advantage to foreign flag
carriers that will not have to bear the costs associated with
implementation of the regulation or cope with the operational
irregularities and passenger inconvenience resulting from
passengers being confronted with the requirement to confirm
this additional information prior to boarding international
flights.
O'Hare Airport slot management.--The bill continues the
general provision (Sec. 319) enacted beginning in fiscal year
1995 which prohibits funding to implement or enforce
regulations that would result in slot allocations for
international operations to any carrier at O'Hare Airport in
excess of the number of slots allocated to and scheduled by
that carrier as of the first day of the 1993-1994 winter
season, if that international slot is withdrawn from an air
carrier under existing regulations for slot withdrawals. Since
slots are all reallocated at the beginning of the winter
season, it is believed that the FAA can easily implement the
provision. The following definitions continue to apply to this
provision: (a) ``air carrier'' shall be as defined in section
1301(3) of title 49 of the U.S. Code App.; (b) ``foreign air
carrier'' shall be as defined in section 1301(22) of title 49
of the U.S. Code App.; and (c) ``slot'' shall be defined as the
operational authority to conduct instrument flight rule
takeoffs and landings as further regulated in subparts K and S
of part 93 of title 14 of the code of federal regulations.
Facilities and Equipment
(Airport and Airway Trust Fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... $1,934,883,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 1,788,700,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 1,800,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... -134,883,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... +11,300,000
This account is the principal means for modernizing and
improving air traffic control and airway facilities. This
account also finances major capital investments required by
other agency programs, experimental research and development
facilities, and other improvements to enhance the safety and
capacity of the airspace system.
Committee Recommendation
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,800,000,000
for this program, which represents an increase of $11,300,000
above the President's budget, but a decrease of $134,883,000 (7
percent) below the level provided in fiscal year 1996. The bill
provides that of the total amount recommended, $1,583,000,000
is available for obligation until September 30, 1999, and
$217,000,000 (the amount for personnel and related expenses) is
available until September 30, 1997. These obligation
availabilities are consistent with past appropriations Acts.
The following chart shows the fiscal year 1996 enacted
level, the fiscal year 1997 budget estimate and the Committee
recommendation for each of the projects funded by this
appropriation:
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Funding Shortfalls
The Committee is disturbed that this year the FAA submitted
a budget request clearly insufficient in several critical
areas. Because of a lack of funds in the FAA's request, the
Committee has added funding for replacement of ground-to-air
radios, re-engineering of air traffic control equipment due to
sale of radio frequency spectrum, and for continued development
of the global positioning system. Without additional funds for
safety and capacity-enhancement projects such as these, system
outages would continue at an alarming rate, the global
positioning system development would be delayed, and FAA would
in all likelihood have to disrupt other programs to locate
resources for reprogramming in mid-year. The Committee
understands the FAA had their budget request for facilities and
equipment reduced by $119,147,000 during the administration's
internal budgeting process. The Committee hopes that in future
years, such extensive modification by the Congress is not
required.
additional funds for safety and capacity
The bill includes $124,250,000 above the budget request for
accelerated development and installation of new air traffic
control equipment to improve airway safety and capacity. In
fiscal year 1996, the appropriations conference report provided
an additional $133,900,000 in facilities and equipment for the
same purpose. Once again this year, the Committee has placed
the highest priority on improving aviation safety. The
Committee's recommendations reduce, wherever possible, funding
for administrative and non-safety related programs in order to
provide this increased funding for safety initiatives.
engineering development, test, and evaluation
En route automation.--The recommended level of $89,155,000
reflects program savings of $10,000,000 from advanced
automation system (AAS) termination liability costs and a
reduction of $7,345,000 in the advanced en route automation
(AERA) project due to a lack of justification. The
recommendation allows total funding of $23,655,000 for
continued development of AERA.
Wide area augmentation system (WAAS) for GPS.--The
Committee recommends $117,100,000 for continued development of
the wide area augmentation system (WAAS) for the global
positioning system. The President's budget requested
$74,500,000 for this program. The recommendation transfers all
funding from budget activity two to more properly reflect the
fact that this program is still under engineering development.
Since submission of the budget, the WAAS program has
experienced significant and disturbing problems. The prime
contract was terminated by the FAA, and FAA has announced an
intention to proceed with another contractor. The FAA also
advised the Committee that total program costs might increase
significantly from the current programmed level of
$516,500,000. The Committee is concerned that these cost
increases may not be affordable unless the FAA begins
submitting budget requests higher than the levels proposed for
the past two fiscal years. In the near term, the FAA advised
the Committee that without an additional $34,000,000 in funding
for fiscal year 1997, the program schedule would slip by one
year. The recommended level provides adequate funding to fully
fund this program and maintain the current schedule. In
addition, the recommendation transfers $8,600,000 from FAA's
operating budget to pay for leased telecommunications costs for
the WAAS program. Since this program is still in development,
the Committee believes such costs should be in the F&E
appropriation.
The Committee considered a proposal to terminate the WAAS
program and implement an upgraded version of the National
Satellite Test Bed. The Committee believes that before such a
significant step is taken on this critical program, FAA should
have a chance to get the WAAS program back under control.
However, the Committee is recommending additional funding for
the NSTB, as a backup option should the restructured WAAS
program encounter any further cost or schedule problems.
National satellite test bed.--The Committee recommends
$11,500,000 in a separate budget line for continued
implementation of the national satellite test bed (NSTB). This
is an essential test facility for the WAAS program, and
provides a potential ``insurance policy'' should the WAAS prime
contract run into further problems. FAA officials advise the
Committee that without an additional $11,500,000 in fiscal year
1997, the date for the NSTB signal in space will slip
indefinitely, resulting in significantly increased risk to the
WAAS development contract. In addition, avionics manufacturers
will not have the data needed to begin development of WAAS
avionics equipment. These are critical activities for full
development and acceptance of global positioning system
technology. Therefore, the Committee recommends full funding
for NSTB development.
Remote maintenance monitoring system.--The Committee
recommends deferral of the National Infrastructure Management
System (NIMS) due to inadequate justification. The Committee
understands that, if implemented, this system would result in
large-scale relocations of FAA maintenance personnel. The
Committee is not convinced that this is a high priority at this
time, and believes the capital and operating costs to
centralize airways facilities personnel may prove as
unaffordable as the FAA's previous plan to consolidate air
traffic facilities. This results in a reduction of $11,600,000
below the budget request.
Terminal automation.--The Committee recommends $43,500,000
for terminal automation systems development, a reduction of
$7,100,000 below the budget request. The recommendation allows
$30,000,000 for the Standard Terminal Automation Replacement
System (STARS) prime contract, $7,500,000 for technical
assistance, and $4,000,000 for field support. The Committee
continues to support the STARS program, and believes this is
sufficient funding to maintain the current program schedule. In
addition, the recommendation includes $2,000,000, not included
in the budget estimate, to maintain the schedule for build two
of the surface movement advisor project. This project was
declared a high priority of the appropriations conferees last
year. However, the FAA proposed to reduce funding in fiscal
year 1997 for this important program.
Terminal digital radar (ASR-11).--The Committee recommends
no funding for this project, a reduction of $23,300,000 from
the budget request. In hearing testimony this year, FAA
officials could not estimate the total cost of this program,
could not state how many ASR-11 systems would ultimately be
required, and could not explain why so much development funding
is required for a system described as ``commercial off the
shelf'' technology. In addition, the Inspector General reported
last year that the FAA's benefit-cost analysis for this program
was seriously flawed. Until concerns such as these are properly
addressed, the Committee believes program funding should be
deferred.
Weather systems processor.--The Committee understands that
the FAA Joint Requirements Council has recently decided to
terminate this program due to a re-estimate of requirements and
a recognition that part 121 air carrier aircraft are now
required to be equipped with airborne windshear detection
equipment. The Committee also understands that a final
determination as to the program's viability will be made by the
Administrator. Should the Administrator reverse the Council's
decision on the weather processor, the Committee is open to
reconsidering funding of this program in conference. Pending a
decision by the Administrator, the funds for this program were
not included for fiscal year 1997. Therefore, funds for this
program will not be required in fiscal year 1997. This results
in a savings of $8,055,000.
Air Traffic Control Facilities and Equipment
Air traffic operations management.--The recommendation
provides the same funding level as appropriated for fiscal year
1996, a reduction of $1,650,000 below the budget estimate.
ARTCC building improvements/plant improvements.--The
Committee recommends $62,083,700, an increase of 5 percent
above the fiscal year 1996 appropriation, but a decrease of
$9,576,000 from the budget estimate. This program has a large
unobligated balance of prior year funds, including funds as far
back as fiscal year 1994. Given the backlog in this program,
the Committee believes a smaller increase is appropriate.
Traffic flow management.--The Committee recommends
$30,960,000 for this program, a reduction of $9,400,000 from
the budget estimate. The recommended adjustments include a
transfer of $3,300,000 to the operations appropriation for the
facility lease for the FAA traffic flow management facility in
Herndon, Virginia. This is an operational facility, and its
lease is clearly an operating expense for the FAA. The
recommendation also defers the proposed new national contract
for traffic flow management system development and integration
due to lack of justification, resulting in a reduction of
$6,100,000.
Spectrum auction impact.--The Committee was very disturbed
to find out that recent sale of portions of the radio frequency
spectrum includes frequencies currently used by air traffic
control safety and communications equipment. Spectrum now
designated to be transferred to the private sector in less than
three years would deny FAA its continued use of long range
radars used to track aircraft across the United States. FAA
would also lose communications frequencies currently used to
transfer operational air traffic control data from site to
site, including radar data. To meet the scheduled turnover date
of these frequencies without losing critical air traffic
control capabilities requires immediate and significant funding
attention. The FAA advises the Committee that $45,000,000 is
needed in fiscal year 1997 to re-engineer the agency's long
range radar systems and low density radio communications links.
An additional $40,000,000 may be required next year. The
Committee's recommendation fully funds this requirement. The
Committee also believes that radio spectrum supporting
aeronautical safety-of-life services should be specifically
exempted from any future spectrum sales, or alternately, that
FAA should be reimbursed for their costs associated with
transfer of radio spectrum from the proceeds of such sales.
Replacement of air traffic control facilities.--The
Committee recommends $74,400,000 for replacement of aging air
traffic control towers, as requested in the President's budget.
The recommendation provides funds for the following locations:
Location Amount
Santa Barbara, CA....................................... $2,502,000
Syracuse, NY............................................ 25,000
Covington, KY........................................... 481,000
Louisville, KY.......................................... 9,750,000
St. Paul, MN............................................ 115,000
Worcester, MA........................................... 633,000
Salt Lake City, UT...................................... 7,180,000
Islip, NY............................................... 367,000
Bangor, ME.............................................. 250,000
Portland, OR............................................ 7,526,000
Dallas (Addison), TX.................................... 640,000
Moses Lake, WA.......................................... 871,000
Mobile (Brookley), AL................................... 200,000
Merrill, AK............................................. 5,202,000
Salina, KS.............................................. 184,000
Newport News, VA........................................ 74,000
Roanoke, VA............................................. 578,000
Newburgh, NY............................................ 25,000
Everett, WA............................................. 104,000
Salt Lake City, UT (TRACON)............................. 2,289,000
Little Rock, AR......................................... 850,000
St. Louis, MO (ATCT).................................... 1,130,000
Champaign, IL........................................... 25,000
Bedford, MA............................................. 820,000
Albany, NY.............................................. 1,917,000
Allentown, PA........................................... 225,000
San Juan, PR............................................ 3,659,000
Chicago, (O'Hare), IL................................... 3,659,000
Helena, MT.............................................. 90,000
Montgomery, AL.......................................... 104,000
Windsor Locks, CT....................................... 9,393,000
Houston (Hobby), TX..................................... 25,000
Fort Smith, AR.......................................... 1,295,000
Houston (Intercontinental), TX.......................... 1,335,000
Roswell, NM............................................. 1,966,000
Los Angeles, CA......................................... 3,987,000
Minneapolis, MN......................................... 550,000
San Diego, CA........................................... 1,975,000
Chicago (Midway), IL.................................... 680,000
St. Louis (ASDE), MO.................................... 553,000
Pontiac, MI............................................. 677,000
Boston (TRACON), MA..................................... 1,110,000
Abilene, TX............................................. 693,000
East St. Louis, IL...................................... 25,000
Seattle (ATCT), WA...................................... 645,000
Riverside, CA........................................... 202,000
Richmond, VA............................................ 525,000
Savannah, GA............................................ 288,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 74,400,000
Metroplex control facilities.--The Committee recommends
total funding of $22,800,000 for new or expanded metroplex
control facilities, the same as the budget estimate. The
following table compares the fiscal year 1996 enacted level,
the fiscal year 1997 estimate, and the Committee recommendation
for each project:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Location -------------------------------- Committee
1996 enacted 1997 estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced planning............................................... $2,000,000 .............. ..............
Dallas/Fort Worth............................................... 13,000,000 .............. ..............
Potomac......................................................... 10,400,000 $1,000,000 $4,000,000
Northern California............................................. 3,800,000 8,700,000 2,700,000
Atlanta......................................................... 3,800,000 500,000 3,500,000
Chicago......................................................... 1,000,000 2,900,000 2,900,000
Southern California............................................. 2,000,000 5,700,000 5,700,000
Denver.......................................................... .............. 4,000,000 4,000,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 36,000,000 22,800,000 22,800,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee's recommendation increases funding for
Potomac and Atlanta, similar to last year's recommendation, in
order to maintain the schedule for these high benefit-to-cost
sites. The recommendation reduces funds for the Northern
California facility, in order to keep this project in line with
other locations which have higher net benefits. The Committee
continues to believe that ATC facility consolidation will lead
to savings in the FAA's operating budget, a conclusion
supported by the FAA's 1995 report to Congress on facility
consolidation. Given the FAA's own statements about future
budget shortfalls, it is hoped the agency will show more
support for consolidation projects in future budget requests,
in order to achieve those savings as soon as possible.
Employee safety/OSHA and environmental compliance
standards.--The Committee recommends $21,000,000, the same
level as provided for fiscal year 1996. The President's budget
requested $36,924,000, an increase of 76 percent.
GRR/GRT radio replacement.--The Committee recommends
$20,000,000 for replacement of FAA's current GRR/GRT radios.
These air-to-ground radios are 20 to 30 years old and are
breaking down at an alarming rate. Mean time between failure is
now estimated to be only 6,000 hours for these radios.
Approximately every 7 minutes one of these units is failing
somewhere in the United States. On an average day, there are
216 failures. The FAA is currently under contract to purchase
replacement radios (designated CM-200). These radios have a
projected mean time between failure of 84,000 hours, and come
with a 10-year warranty. Although FAA plans to develop a new
digital radio, the FAA estimates a new digital radio
procurement to cost $950,000,000. Given the agency's budget
outlook, this program is almost certainly unaffordable.
Furthermore, the FAA's schedule does not call for a full
replacement of the existing radios until the year 2010. The
Committee believes the agency cannot afford the high costs of
maintaining the existing radios until that time. The FAA's
benefit-cost analysis for this program stated that ``overall,
the cost savings and benefits to procure the remaining radios .
. . by far outweigh the high maintenance costs and projected
failure rates of the [existing] radios . . . The alternatives
other than to buy additional . . . radios would be far too
costly, inefficient, and not practical to consider''. Given
these findings, the Committee believes the FAA should
expeditiously pursue replacement of these aging radios.
Automated weather observing system (AWOS).--The bill
includes $1,000,000 for additional procurement and installation
of the automated weather observing system.
Loran-C upgrades.--The Committee recommends $5,650,000 for
upgrades to the Loran-C navigation system. Of this amount,
$650,000 is for implementation of an automatic blink system
(ABS). Last year, the appropriations conferees directed FAA to
expedite development of ABS. Despite this, FAA has not moved
forward during fiscal year 1996 on this project. The Committee
is disappointed the FAA has ignored this direction, and intends
that such directions be followed. While the FAA's position is
that Loran-C and other navigation systems will be replaced
ultimately by GPS technology, it is apparent by FAA's inability
to fully fund either the wide area or local area GPS
augmentation programs in the fiscal year 1997 budget that GPS
implementation has funding and schedule risks. In addition, the
recent wide area contract termination raises additional risks
that GPS development and implementation will see continued
delays. For these reasons, the Committee believes it prudent to
begin upgrading the existing Loran-C network, and provides
$5,650,000 for this purpose.
Air navigation facility/ATC system support.--Based on a
review of this year's hearing data, the Committee believes FAA
has not been utilizing these funds for the purposes justified
before Congress in annual budget submissions. Therefore, the
Committee recommends no further funding, a reduction of
$4,800,000 from the budget request. The program was
appropriated $2,500,000 in fiscal year 1996.
Non-ATC Facilities and Equipment
NAS management automation program.--The Committee defers
this project due to low priority and budget constraints, a
reduction of $1,300,000 from the budget estimate. No funds were
provided for fiscal year 1996.
Hazardous materials management.--The Committee recommends
$15,000,000, a reduction of $3,000,000 from the budget
estimate. The reduction is due to budget constraints.
Computer based instruction.--The recommendation provides
$3,500,000, a reduction of $3,500,000 from the budget estimate.
The Committee recommendation terminates the interactive video
training (IVT) project, based on the Inspector General's
findings that the project is not cost effective. In testimony
before the Committee this year, the Inspector General stated
``FAA cannot support its basic assumptions in its cost-benefit
analyses and refuses to use available actual data which
demonstrates the video training system is not cost effective .
. . it is clear from our audit that program managers decided
they wanted a video training system, they would do whatever was
necessary to develop that capability, and they would do
whatever was necessary to obtain services from their preferred
sources.'' FAA's response to the IG report does not adequately
assure the Committee that these issues have been resolved.
Mission Support
Technical services support contract.--The Committee
recommends $71,000,000 for this program, an increase of
$5,100,000 above the budget estimate. The FAA testified this
year that significant amounts of ATC equipment are either
warehoused or otherwise waiting for installation funding.
According to the FAA, approximately $26,000,000 of equipment is
currently warehoused, and there is a shortfall of another
$26,000,000 for other equipment. The FAA testified this year
that, excluding the prior year backlog, F&E-funded
installations are 28 percent short of requirements for the
coming year. These systems include runway lighting, approach
lighting, runway visual range equipment, and navigational aids.
This equipment would provide immediate improvements in the
safety, capacity, and efficiency of the airway system in this
country. The Committee is very disturbed that the FAA has not
been adhering to the full funding principle in its procurement
of equipment, leading to this embarrassing problem. The
Committee believes it makes little sense to procure additional
systems which, when delivered, have to be stored due to
inadequate funds for installation, checkout and commissioning.
The Committee recommendation provides an additional $5,100,000
to address the significant installation backlog.
Permanent change of station moves.--The Committee
recommends $5,500,000, a reduction of $3,000,000 below the
budget estimate. Last year, the Inspector General issued a
highly critical report revealing serious weaknesses in FAA's
management of F&E-funded permanent change of station moves. In
addition, the Committee is concerned that FAA has expanded the
scope of F&E-funded PCS moves beyond necessary levels. Several
years ago, in order to assist in ATC facility consolidation,
the Committee agreed with the FAA that PCS moves related to
facility closures or commissionings could be funded from the
F&E appropriation. Now, however, FAA is pursuing only minimal
consolidation, and using these funds for PCS moves related to
control tower closures and special projects. Given the abuses
revealed by the IG report and the abandonment of the original
consolidation plan, the Committee believes it appropriate to
return to the original policy of financing many such moves from
the operating appropriation.
Personnel and Related Expenses
The Committee recommends $217,000,000 for acquisition
personnel and related expenses, the same as the budget request.
This is an increase of $1,000,000 above the fiscal year 1996
enacted level. Combined with the additional funding provided
for the technical services support contract, increased
resources are being provided for FAA to address the backlog of
installation requirements around the country for new and
upgraded air traffic control systems and equipment.
Research, Engineering, and Development
(airport and airway trust fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... $185,698,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 195,700,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 185,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... -698,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -10,700,000
The accompanying bill includes $185,000,000 for long-term
research, engineering and development programs to improve the
air traffic control system and to increase its safety and
capacity to meet air traffic demands of the future, as
authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act and the
Federal Aviation Act. This appropriation also finances the
research, engineering and development needed to establish or
modify federal air regulations.
Committee Recommendation
The Committee recommends $185,000,000, a reduction of
$698,000 below the fiscal year 1996 enacted level and
$10,700,000 below the President's budget request. This year,
the Committee received testimony documenting extensive
equipment outages and safety concerns in the national airspace
system. While still the safest airway system in the world,
aviation accidents in 1994 and 1996 highlight the need for more
rapid implementation of advanced safety technologies,
especially those related to forecasting and detection of
hazardous weather conditions such as windshear. The high
percentage of accidents and incidents due to human error call
for a sustained, high priority research program to address
human factors issues. In some cases, these priorities have
necessitated reductions in other research programs.
A table showing the fiscal year 1996 enacted level, the
fiscal year 1997 budget estimate, and the Committee
recommendation follows:
RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT
[Fiscal year 1997]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Program name -------------------------------- House Change to
1996 enacted 1997 estimate recommended estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
System development and infrastructure........... $10,000,000 $16,822,000 $13,260,000 -$3,562,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
System planning and resource management..... 2,000,000 4,857,000 1,860,000 -2,997,000
Technical laboratory facility............... 8,000,000 6,765,000 6,200,000 -565,000
Center for Advanced Aviation System
Development................................ 0 5,200,000 5,200,000 0
===============================================================
Capacity and air traffic management technology.. 37,200,000 40,570,000 32,388,000 -8,182,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Air traffic management technology........... 3,500,000 6,757,000 4,000,000 -2,757,000
Oceanic automation program.................. 8,000,000 6,539,000 6,539,000 0
Runway incursion reduction.................. 4,000,000 2,766,000 2,766,000 0
System capacity, planning and improvements.. 9,000,000 8,950,000 8,950,000 0
Cockpit technology.......................... 6,700,000 5,584,000 3,000,000 -2,584,000
General aviation/vertical flight technology. 2,600,000 3,894,000 3,000,000 -894,000
Modeling, analysis, and simulation.......... 3,400,000 4,133,000 4,133,000 0
Automation system design.................... 0 1,947,000 0 -1,947,000
===============================================================
Communications, navigation and surveillance..... 23,000,000 20,371,000 21,000,000 629,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Communications.............................. 10,000,000 10,798,000 6,000,000 -4,798,000
Navigation.................................. 13,000,000 9,573,000 15,000,000 5,427,000
Surveillance................................ 0 0 0 0
===============================================================
Weather......................................... 6,493,000 6,411,000 13,000,000 6,589,000
Airport technology.............................. 6,000,000 6,000,000 5,200,000 -800,000
===============================================================
Aircraft safety technology...................... 37,978,000 38,999,000 34,994,000 -4,005,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aircraft systems fire safety................ 0 6,993,000 6,993,000 0
Advanced materials/structural safety........ 2,000,000 3,065,000 3,065,000 0
Propulsion and fuel systems................. 3,400,000 3,779,000 3,779,000 0
Flight safety/atmospheric hazards research.. 4,173,000 2,063,000 2,063,000 0
Aging aircraft.............................. 20,000,000 13,889,000 13,889,000 0
Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention
research................................... 2,705,000 3,094,000 2,705,000 -389,000
Fire research............................... 5,700,000 0 0 0
Aviation safety risk analysis............... 0 6,116,000 2,500,000 -3,616,000
===============================================================
System security technology...................... 36,045,000 36,055,000 33,558,000 -2,497,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Explosives and weapons detection............ 29,000,000 27,398,000 27,397,000 0
Airport security technology integration..... 1,000,000 2,258,000 2,258,000 0
Aviation security human factors............. 2,549,000 5,039,000 2,542,000 -2,497,000
Aircraft hardening.......................... 3,496,000 1,361,000 1,361,000 0
===============================================================
Human factors and aviation medicine............. 23,682,000 23,682,000 26,000,000 2,318,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Flight deck/maintenance/system integration
human factors.............................. 11,182,000 10,898,000 11,500,000 602,000
Air traffic control/airway facilities human
factors.................................... 10,000,000 8,606,000 10,500,000 1,894,000
Aeromedical research........................ 2,500,000 4,178,000 4,000,000 -178,000
===============================================================
Environment and energy.......................... 3,800,000 3,800,000 3,600,000 -200,000
Innovative/cooperative research................. 1,500,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 -1,000,000
===============================================================
Total appropriation....................... 185,698,000 195,700,000 185,000,000 -10,700,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
System Development and Infrastructure
System planning and resource management.--Among other
things, this activity publishes the RE&D Plan, develops the
RE&D budget submission, and provides management and scheduling
support for the RE&D program. The Committee recommendation
allows the fiscal year 1996 level of $660,000 for personnel and
$1,200,000 for support of the Radio Technical Commission on
Aeronautics (RTCA). Total funding is 7 percent below the fiscal
year 1996 level.
Technical laboratory facility.--The Committee recommends a
reduction of 8 percent due to budget constraints, and to fund
higher priority activities. This program provides institutional
funding for certain research and development laboratories at
the FAA Technical Center in New Jersey.
Capacity and Air Traffic Management Technology
Air traffic management technology.--Given the need to fund
higher priority safety research, the Committee believes that
traffic flow management and collaborative decision-making
research can be slowed. The recommendation still allows a
$500,000 (14 percent) increase over the fiscal year 1996
funding level, versus the 93 percent increase proposed.
Cockpit technology.--Like the item above, this research
would develop long-term capacity enhancements to the traffic
collision avoidance system (TCAS). This research can be slowed
to address higher priority safety research in human factors and
weather. The Committee recommends $3,000,000, a reduction of
$2,584,000 from the budget estimate.
General aviation/vertical flight technology.--The
recommendation allows an increase of 15 percent versus the 50
percent increase requested. The reduction is due to budget
constraints.
Automation system design.--Among other things, one product
of this new effort would be to develop an econometric model of
air traffic management system acquisitions. This is a low
priority activity, given budget constraints and higher
priorities.
Communications, Navigation and Surveillance
Communications.--This program is poorly justified and
duplicates much of the work done in F&E. The recommendation
provides $6,000,000, a reduction of $4,798,000 below the budget
request.
Navigation.--This program develops GPS augmentations for
civil navigation. Inexplicably, early in 1996 the FAA deferred
development of the local area augmentation system (LAAS),
despite the very positive benefit-to-cost ratio and the strong
support of industry and general aviation for early development
of LAAS technology. Additional funding of $5,427,000 is
provided to maintain the schedule for LAAS development,
including $1,000,000 for a government-industry partnership with
the airline industry for development of LAAS minimum
operational performance standards.
Weather
The Committee recommends $13,000,000 for weather safety
research. This compares to $6,493,000 provided for fiscal year
1996 and $6,411,000 in the President's budget request. Included
in the increase is $5,000,000 provided for the weather research
program coordinated by the National Center for Atmospheric
Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado. The Committee and
Congress added funds in the facilities and equipment
appropriation in fiscal year 1996 for this project, but for the
second year in a row the President's budget requests deep
reductions. This research is strongly supported by the aviation
industry and by a recent report of the National Academy of
Sciences, which urged FAA to take a national leadership role in
aviation weather improvements. In addition, the bill provides
$1,589,000 for project socrates, which involves innovative
research into clear air turbulence and wake vortex surveillance
using laser-doppler field sensing technology.
Airport Technology
The Committee recommends $5,200,000, a reduction to the
budget request of $800,000 (13 percent). The reduction is due
to budget constraints. The request would have funded new
initiatives such as ``advisory circulars on planning ground
access'', a ``computer active training curriculum'', and a
study of ``regional airport habitat''. Funds have been
transferred to higher priority safety activities.
Aircraft Safety Technology
Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention research.--The
Committee's recommendation provides $2,705,000, the same
funding level as appropriated for each of the past two years.
The budget requested an increase to $3,094,000.
Aviation safety risk analysis.--This program has been split
out from the Aging Aircraft program. The objective of the
program is to improve ``FAA and industry measurement of and
accountability for safety performance through risk assessment,
operational indicators, and the shared use of safety-related
data''. It's far from clear why FAA should be doing this rather
than industry. The justifications appear vague and duplicative
with programs such as the aviation safety analysis system
(ASAS) and SPAS. The recommendation allows $2,500,000 instead
of the $6,116,000 requested.
System Security Technology
Aviation security human factors.--The Committee
recommendation of $2,542,000 provides approximately the fiscal
year 1996 level, versus the 98 percent increase requested. Some
of the activities do not appear to address human factors
issues. For example, ``evaluation of detection systems
involving emerging technologies'', and ``optimization of
combined detection technologies through component integration
within futuristic screener stations'' do not appear to be
related to human factors.
Human Factors and Aviation Medicine
Overall, the recommendation provides an increase of
$2,318,000 (10 percent) above fiscal year 1996. The budget
proposed no increase. Human factors are far and away the
greatest cause of aviation accidents. For this reason, the
Committee continues to believe the FAA should place a high
priority on funding for this activity, even if other areas must
be reduced.
Flight deck/maintenance/system integration human factors.--
The recommendation provides an increase of $318,000 (3 percent)
above fiscal year 1996, just enough to keep up with the
projected rate of inflation.
Air traffic control/airway facilities human factors.--The
recommendation provides an increase of $500,000 (5 percent)
above fiscal year 1996. This addresses human factors problems
experienced by air traffic controllers and FAA maintenance
personnel.
Aeromedical research.--The recommendation includes a minor
reduction of $178,000 (4 percent) due to budget constraints.
The recommended level still provides an increase of 60 percent
over the fiscal year 1996 level.
Environment and Energy
The Committee recommends $3,600,000. The reduction of
$200,000 (5 percent) is due to budget constraints.
Innovative and Cooperative Research
The Committee recommends $2,000,000, a 33 percent increase
over the fiscal year 1996 level, but a reduction of $1,000,000
to the budget request. The reduction is due to budget
constraints, and the need to fund higher priority activities in
aviation weather, GPS development, and human factors safety
research.
General Provision
Federally-funded research and development center.--The bill
continues a general provision enacted beginning in fiscal year
1995 (Sec. 320) which caps staffing at the FAA's existing
federally-funded research and development center (FFRDC) to no
more than 335 members of the technical staff. The Committee is
pleased with changes made by the FAA and FFRDC management over
the past two years to address the earlier concerns, and
believes that these changes provide a stronger, more productive
FFRDC relationship. The Committee's review of ongoing FFRDC
programs indicates the agency is getting a better product
because of these changes.
Grants-in-Aid for Airports
(Liquidation of Contract Authorization)
(Airport and Airway Trust Fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.........................($1,500,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... (1,500,000,000)
Recommended in the bill................................. (1,500,000,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996............(.......................)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997..........(.......................)
The bill includes a liquidating cash appropriation of
$1,500,000,000 for grants-in-aid for airports, authorized by
the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended.
This funding provides for liquidation of obligations incurred
pursuant to contract authority and annual limitations on
obligations for grants-in-aid for airport planning and
development, noise compatibility and planning, the military
airport program, reliever airports, and other authorized
activities. This is the same funding as requested in the
President's budget, and same level as provided for fiscal year
1996.
Limitation On Obligations
The bill includes a limitation on obligations of
$1,300,000,000 for fiscal year 1997. This is $50,000,000 (4
percent) below the President's budget request and $150,000,000
(10 percent) below the fiscal year 1996 level. As set forth in
the authorizing statute, the obligation limitation will be
distributed as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Project --------------------------------------------------------
1996 enacted 1997 estimate 1997 recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entitlements:
Primary airports................................... $428,226,519 $373,235,433 $353,641,246
Cargo airports (3.5%).............................. 38,945,243 31,917,154 29,121,503
Alaska supplemental................................ 10,672,557 10,528,980 10,528,980
States (12.5%)..................................... 159,148,385 142,486,919 134,701,143
Carryover entitlements............................. 91,056,641 100,000,000 100,000,000
Discretionary set-asides:
Noise (12.5%)...................................... 181,250,000 148,423,874 140,313,690
Reliever airports (5%)............................. 48,000,000 59,369,550 56,125,476
Commercial service (1.5%).......................... 21,750,000 17,810,865 16,837,643
System planning (.75%)............................. 10,875,000 8,905,432 8,418,821
Military airport program (2.5%).................... 26,000,000 29,684,775 28,062,738
Returned entitlements:
Non-hub airports................................... 58,186,123 58,649,725 55,570,720
Non-commercial service............................. 29,093,061 29,324,862 27,785,360
Small hubs......................................... 14,546,531 14,662,431 13,892,680
Other discretionary:
Capacity/safety/security/noise..................... 249,187,455 243,750,000 243,750,000
Remaining discretionary............................ 83,062,485 81,250,000 81,250,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total limitation................................. 1,450,000,000 1,350,000,000 1,300,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multi-year commitments.--To the maximum extent possible, in
allocating discretionary funds the FAA shall, as a top
priority, fund projects in the final phase of multi-year
commitments. The Committee believes this will maximize the
effectiveness of previously-appropriated discretionary funds.
General Provisions
Sixth runway, Denver International Airport.--The bill
retains the general provision (Sec. 324) enacted beginning in
fiscal year 1995 which prohibits funding for planning,
engineering, design, or construction of a sixth runway at the
new Denver International Airport, unless the FAA administrator
determines, in writing, that safety conditions warrant
obligation of such funds. The Committee remains unconvinced at
this time that the runway is a high priority, and that such a
project could be managed effectively given the past management
history of the overall project.
Aircraft Purchase Loan Guarantee Program
The bill includes a zero obligation limitation on
borrowings during fiscal year 1997 under the aircraft purchase
loan guarantee program, as requested in the President's budget.
This is scored as a mandatory program for budgetary purposes.
Administrative Services Franchise Fund
The Committee does not recommend inclusion of bill
language, proposed by the administration, which would have
authorized the FAA to establish an administrative services
franchise fund. The Committee has approved the creation of a
department-level Transportation Administrative Service Center
in the Office of the Secretary. It is unclear at this time why
such entities are required at both the departmental and agency
levels, and why the FAA should be the only DOT agency with such
an authorization. Furthermore, the proposed language is
legislative in nature. The FAA is encouraged to submit this
proposal to the appropriate legislative committees for their
review. Should the FAA provide convincing evidence that such an
entity will save significant administrative costs, the
Committee will consider such a proposal in future years in
coordination with the authorizing committee.
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
Summary of Fiscal Year 1997 Program
The Federal Highway Administration provides financial
assistance to the states to construct and improve roads and
highways, enforces federal standards relating to interstate
motor carriers and the highway transport of hazardous
materials, and provides technical assistance to other agencies
and organizations involved in the road building activities.
Title 23 U.S.C. and other supporting legislation provide
authority for the various activities of the Federal Highway
Administration. Most of the funding is provided by contract
authority, with program levels established by annual
limitations on obligations provided in appropriations Acts.
Under the Committee recommendations, a total program level
of $19,682,425,000 would be provided for the activities of the
Federal Highway Administration in fiscal year 1997. This is
$287,307,000 below the fiscal year 1996 level. This reduction
is attributed to changes in the funding levels for the exempt
programs, funding that is pre-determined by the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA).
The following table summarizes the fiscal year 1996 program
levels, the fiscal year 1997 program requests and the
Committee's recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program 1996 enacted \1\ 1997 estimate 1997 recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-aid highways \2\.................................. $17,550,000,000 $17,714,000,000 $17,550,000,000
Highway-related safety grants \2\ \3\..................... 11,000,000 ................ ................
Motor carrier safety grants \2\........................... 77,225,000 85,000,000 77,425,000
Alameda Corridor project.................................. ................ 58,680,000 ................
State infrastructure banks................................ ................ 250,000,000 ................
Exempt federal-aid programs............................... 2,331,507,000 1,314,802,000 2,055,000,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 19,969,732,000 19,422,482,000 19,682,425,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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\ Proposed to be funded from NHTSA's Highway Traffic Safety Grants in fiscal year 1997.
CENTRAL ARTERY/THIRD HARBOR TUNNEL
Over the past several years, the Committee, the
Department's Inspector General and the General Accounting
Office (GAO) have conducted a series of hearings, audit
reports, briefings and advisory memoranda presenting numerous
concerns regarding the costs, management, federal oversight and
financing of the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel in Boston,
Massachusetts.
Project description.--The Central Artery/Third Harbor
Tunnel project will build or reconstruct about 7.5 miles of
urban highways in Boston--about half of them underground. The
project will (1) extend Interstate 90 east, mostly in tunnels,
through South Boston, under Boston Harbor (through the Ted
Williams Tunnel) to East Boston and Logan International
Airport; (2) replace the Central Artery--an elevated portion of
Interstate 93 through downtown Boston--with an underground
roadway; and (3) replace the I-93 bridge over the Charles
River.
Project costs.--At a cost of over $1,000,000,000 a mile,
the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project is one of the
largest, most complex, and most expensive highway construction
projects ever undertaken. The project, originally estimated to
cost $2,500,000,000 in 1985 is likely to grow in cost to more
than $10,000,000,000. As the GAO reported in its May 1996
review:
Massachusetts' official estimate of the total cost of
the Central Artery/Tunnel project is $7.8 billion.
However, that estimate excludes over $1 billion in
costs that were included in previous estimates and does
not account for the effects of inflation. Our analysis
shows that the project's costs would total over $10.4
billion if the excluded costs and inflation were
considered.
This estimate was also supported by Secretary Pena during
his testimony before the Committee on April 18, 1996. The
Secretary reiterated the Federal Highway Administration's
position that the total cost for this project is
$10,400,000,000.
Financing the project.--Nearly two years after the first
draft financial plan was submitted to FHWA, the department and
Massachusetts have just recently agreed on a finance plan that
details a range of funding and cost-to-complete scenarios.
These scenarios indicate that available state and federal
funding may not be sufficient to complete the Central Artery/
Third Harbor Tunnel project as scheduled by 2004. Although the
amount of federal funding that will be available in fiscal year
1998 and beyond is not known, shortfalls exist under all
scenarios modeled in the finance plan. The state faces
challenges to both maintain its commitment to its statewide
road and bridge improvement program and build the Central
Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project. The Committee is also
concerned that the project still faces several risks that could
increase its costs further, including aggressive cost
containment goals that may be difficult to meet, legal
challenges that threaten the schedule, and construction
uncertainties in a densely populated, historic urban area.
Other items.--The department's Inspector General has
documented a number of troubling inefficiencies with the
project, including underutilized value engineering
recommendations that could have resulted in significant
savings; rights-of-way, easements and leasehold rights that
were acquired unnecessarily; change order control which lacked
constant attention and established criteria against which the
validity of changes were judged; and the use of uniformed
police officers to direct traffic at project construction sites
instead of civilian flaggers and mechanical devices that could
save significant costs.
It had been the Committee's intent to limit expenditures on
the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel in fiscal year 1997;
however, considerable progress has been made by both the
Federal Highway Administration and the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts over the past several months which have addressed
some of the Committee's concerns. These actions lessen the need
to withhold federal funds from the project at this juncture.
Specifically:
(1) The department's Inspector General, the GAO and FHWA
have all independently verified that the estimated total costs
of the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project will be
$10,400,000,000. Both the FHWA and the GAO noted that it was
important that Massachusetts fully disclose the total estimated
cost of the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project. A full
disclosure of the project's total costs provides the only basis
for the Congress, state leaders, and the public to understand
the extent of the federal and state investment in the Central
Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project. Full disclosure is also the
only means of providing a consistent baseline for measuring
changes in the cost of the project over time. To that end,
Massachusetts has agreed to reflect total costs as well as
costs-to-complete in the most recent finance plan amended June
1996.
(2) The Commonwealth will be required to update the finance
plan annually on October 1 of each year until the project is
completed. In addition, Massachusetts will be required to
prepare additional finance plan updates any time significant
changes occur in project costs and/or revenue assumptions.
Monthly management reports being prepared for the project will
provide the information to judge when and if significant
changes occur in these assumptions. This intense scrutiny is
justified given the size and cost of the project and is
permitted under provisions of 23 CFR 1.5, which authorize the
administrator to require that the state furnish such
information as deemed desirable in administering the federal-
aid program.
(3) As a prerequisite to FHWA's concurrence in the award of
advance construction contracts, the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts now must demonstrate that it has sufficient cash,
binding contracts with third parties, and/or unencumbered
bonding authority to cover contract costs.
(4) The Commonwealth has committed to pay for the costs of
uniformed police traffic details with state resources and will
not seek federal reimbursement for these costs. The Inspector
General had estimated that the use of civilian flaggers instead
of uniformed police officers could save approximately
$27,000,000 in federal funds.
The Committee will continue to work with the department and
Massachusetts to monitor the project's costs and financial
assumptions to advance the project during fiscal year 1997. The
Committee wishes to reiterate, however, that Congress indicated
in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
that the funding provided for interstate construction and the
$2,500,000,000 provided specifically for the Central Artery/
Third Harbor Tunnel project are intended to be the final
contributions for construction under the Interstate program.
Accordingly, Massachusetts must accept the risks associated
with potential cost overruns and possible reductions in future
federal-aid apportionment levels, particularly as related to
Massachusetts' extensive use of advance construction. The
department is directed to submit periodic updates of the
finance plan to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations, the Inspector General, and the General
Accounting Office for review and to inform the Committee of any
circumstances which will have the effect of increasing costs on
the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project.
The Committee received the following correspondence from
Secretary Kerasiotes regarding the Central Artery/Third Harbor
Tunnel Project in Boston, Massachusetts.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Miller Highway.--The Committee has continued a prohibition
(sec. 330) on the use of funds for the improvement of Miller
Highway in New York City.
Limitation on General Operating Expenses
Limitation, fiscal year 1996............................ ($509,660,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... (652,905,000)
Recommended in the bill................................. (510,981,000)
Bill compared with:
Limitation, fiscal year 1996........................ (+1,321,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... (-141,924,000)
\1\ Excludes reductions of $15,661,000 to comply with working capital
fund and administrative provisions, and $756,000 to comply with the
Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.
The limitation controls spending for the salaries and
expenses of the Federal Highway Administration required to
conduct and administer the federal-aid highway program and most
other federal highway programs. The limitation includes a
number of contract programs, such as highway research,
development and technology, intelligent transportation systems,
rural technical assistance, and minority business enterprises.
In addition, administrative costs for highway-related safety
grants are transferred to the limitation.
The Committee recommends a limitation of $510,981,000. This
amount is $1,321,000 more than the fiscal year 1996 level of
$509,660,000, and it is $141,924,000 less than the budget
estimate. The Committee notes that the fiscal year 1997 budget
proposal for the Federal Highway Administration included an
increase in the statutory cap on funds authorized to be set
aside for research and administration of the federal-aid
highway program for fiscal year 1997 from 3.75 percent of core
program funds to 4.75 percent of such funds. The FHWA's fiscal
year 1997 budget proposal requests an additional $160,000,000
over the fiscal year 1996 level for research and technology
programs funded from the general operating expenses portion of
the administrative takedown. These funds would principally be
used for research and technology programs, notably model
deployment of intelligent transportation systems. The Committee
does not have the authority to provide for this one-time
increase in the percentage of sums authorized to be withheld
from federal-aid highway apportionments for research programs
and administration of the highway programs.
The following table summarizes the fiscal year 1996
limitation, the fiscal year 1997 budget estimate, and the
Committee's recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997
Program 1996 enacted 1997 estimate recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses (excl. OMC):
Salaries and expenses.................................... $174,198,000 $178,523,000 $176,269,000
Travel................................................... 9,813,000 9,813,000 9,813,000
Transportation........................................... 673,000 673,000 673,000
Rent, communications and utilities....................... 25,706,000 26,688,000 25,738,000
Printing................................................. 92,000 92,000 92,000
TASC..................................................... 18,786,000 19,542,000 19,542,000
Supplies................................................. 2,204,000 2,204,000 2,204,000
Equipment................................................ 3,512,000 3,512,000 3,512,000
Other.................................................... 11,504,000 11,504,000 11,504,000
Procurement savings...................................... ............... -3,000,000 -3,000,000
Civil rights transfer.................................... 809,000 809,000 809,000
Motor carrier safety administrative expenses................. 46,000,000 49,500,000 49,127,000
Contract programs/research & development:
Highway R&D.............................................. 53,969,000 81,638,000 65,725,000
ITS...................................................... 105,002,000 223,760,000 115,000,000
Technology deployment.................................... 12,499,000 14,846,000 13,499,000
National Advanced Driving Simulator...................... ............... 4,000,000 ...............
Long term pavement performance........................... 8,308,000 ............... ...............
Local rural technical assistance......................... 2,866,000 4,100,000 2,866,000
National Highway Institute............................... 4,327,000 6,000,000 4,327,000
Minority business enterprise............................. 9,506,000 10,000,000 9,506,000
International transportation............................. 475,000 500,000 475,000
Rehabilitation of TFHRC.................................. ............... 500,000 500,000
Russian technical assistance program..................... 380,000 400,000 ...............
Truck dynamic test facility.............................. 713,000 ............... ...............
Transportation investment analysis....................... ............... 1,906,000 ...............
Federal lands-containment cleanup........................ ............... 2,500,000 2,500,000
South African program.................................... ............... 400,000 ...............
International scanning activities........................ ............... 800,000 ...............
Cost allocation study.................................... 1,901,000 1,695,000 300,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. \1\ 493,243,000 652,905,000 510,981,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes reductions of $15,661,000 to comply with working capital fund and administrative provisions, and
$756,000 to comply with the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.
administrative expenses
The Committee recommends a total of $296,279,000 for
administrative expenses. This amount is $2,226,000 more than
provided in fiscal year 1996 and $3,581,000 less than the
budget estimate. The recommendation assumes a reduction of 57
full time equivalent positions for a total of 3,245. The
Committee recommendation includes $49,127,000 for motor carrier
safety operations, not including the $7,390,000 in the
research, development and technology program.
Salaries and expenses adjustment.--The Committee has not
provided supplemental funds requested for civil rights
activities (-$2,254,000). Sufficient funds were provided in the
fiscal year 1996 Department of Transportation and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act for these activities and are also
included within the amounts provided for fiscal year 1997. In
no way shall this adjustment affect the Federal Highway
Administration's ongoing civil rights activities in fiscal year
1997.
Rent.--Consistent with the Committee's recommendation to
reduce the department's overall utilization of space, the
Committee has reduced the FHWA's request for rental payments to
$17,294,000. These funds are budgeted in this account and
reimbursed to ``Rental payments'' in the office of the
secretary.
MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY OPERATIONS
The Committee recommends $49,127,000 for motor carrier
safety operations, not including the funding of $7,390,000 for
research, which is included in the research, development, and
technology line. This is an increase of $3,127,000 above the
1996 enacted level.
The Committee recommends the following changes to the
budget request for this appropriation:
Reduce funding for new outreach and educational
initiatives by 15 percent........................... -$73,000
Decrease expenditures on new computer equipment by 10
percent............................................. -50,000
Hold travel to 10 percent increase...................... -250,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Net change to budget estimate..................... -373,000
Outreach and educational initiatives.--The Committee has
provided $400,000 for outreach and educational initiatives
instead of the $473,000 requested. As part of these
initiatives, the office of motor carriers (OMC) planned to
develop a hazardous materials manual that would educate
carriers on the regulations; however, this manual was developed
in 1994 and 1995 and only technical updates should be needed at
this point.
Computer equipment.--The Committee has provided $220,000 to
procure new computer equipment instead of the $270,000
requested. Although portable electronic hardware is very
important for inspectors to conduct their work in the most
efficient manner possible, the Committee could not provide a
114 percent increase due to budgetary constraints. With this
increase, OMC was planning on upgrading portable printers and
laptops, and purchasing scanners. The Committee suggests that
OMC place a priority on upgrading older equipment before
procuring new scanners that inspectors do not currently use.
Travel.--The Committee recommends $2,200,000 for travel,
which is $200,000 more than enacted in fiscal year 1996. The
office of motor carriers is seeking a 23 percent increase in
its travel funds, although this increase is not fully
justified. As such, the Committee recommends a 10 percent
increase for travel.
Safety rating process.--The Committee is pleased to learn
FHWA is seeking to restructure its safety rating system through
a zero-based review designed to improve safety while reducing
paperwork. The Committee strongly recommends the new safety
determination process for motor carriers be based primarily on
motor carrier performance in lieu of the current emphasis on
paperwork compliance. The Committee believes safety fitness
should be based on accurate, up-to-date motor carrier
performance data, including reportable accident rates per
million miles.
The Committee requests that FHWA develop, within 180 days
of enactment of this Act, a pilot project, preferably in the
midwest, that would allow carriers identified as having
problems through the commercial vehicle information system to
be given an opportunity to proactively address issues before
being subjected to sanctions. The Committee suggests the
midwest because we have been advised of some problems within
this area. Rather than FHWA proceeding with the normal adverse
rating process and enforcement action, a third party safety
service, approved in advance by FHWA would intercede and work
with the carrier to improve performance. The carrier's time and
money will be focused on gaining compliance rather than
defending past actions. The Committee directs that any costs
associated with the safety service be paid by the motor carrier
and, if the carrier's performance did not improve, the
Committee expects FHWA to then proceed with its full range of
enforcement actions.
CONTRACT PROGRAMS
The limitation on general operating expenses includes a
total of $214,698,000,000 for contract programs. This
represents an increase of $14,752,000 from fiscal year 1996 and
a decrease of $138,347,000 from the budget estimate of
$353,045,000. Although the recommendation represents a
significant reduction below the budget estimate, the FHWA's
contract programs have grown considerably over the last few
years. As recently as three years ago, the contract programs of
the Federal Highway Administration were at the $100,000,000
level. The Committee believes that sufficient funds have been
provided for the Federal Highway Administration to continue its
ongoing efforts in highway research, technology and development
programs without jeopardy. Within the Committee recommendation,
funding levels remained unchanged from the fiscal year 1996
enacted levels for local technical assistance, National Highway
Institute, disadvantaged business enterprises, and
international transportation. No changes from the budget
estimate are recommended for rehabilitation to the Turner-
Fairbanks facility and for the clean-up of contaminated federal
lands of the FHWA.
HIGHWAY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND TECHNOLOGY
The Committee recommends $65,725,000 for highway research,
development, and technology programs. The following table
summarizes the fiscal year 1996 program level, the fiscal year
1997 budget estimate and the Committee recommendations for the
various research areas:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997
Program 1996 program 1997 estimate recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety.......................................................... $8,335,000 $8,768,000 $8,768,000
Pavements....................................................... 8,791,000 23,200,000 19,000,000
Structures...................................................... 12,558,000 22,000,000 13,558,000
Environment..................................................... 5,317,000 5,593,000 5,317,000
Right-of-way.................................................... 408,000 322,000 322,000
Policy.......................................................... 5,401,000 5,681,000 5,401,000
Planning........................................................ 5,769,000 8,300,000 5,969,000
Motor carrier................................................... 7,390,000 7,774,000 7,390,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 53,969,000 81,638,000 65,725,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety.--The Committee recommends $8,768,000 for highway
safety research and development, the same as the budget
estimate and $433,000 above last year's level. The combination
of ISTEA and general operating expenses (GOE) funds will result
in a safety research and development program of not less than
$12,768,000 of new contract authority.
Pavements.--The Committee recommends $19,000,000 for
pavements research and development. Within the Committee's
allowance is $10,000,000 which was requested for the long term
pavement and performance program (LTPP), including funds for
data analysis. The LTPP is entering a new phase requiring
substantial data analysis that will provide the framework for
improved pavement maintenance. The Committee agrees with FHWA
that support for the LTPP should be the highest priority in the
pavements research and development program. The LTPP will
result in substantial benefits to the states. Within the funds
provided, the Committee recommends $2,000,000 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 for increased emphasis on exploratory highway research.
The Committee notes that post-tensioned concrete pavement
may offer a design that produces a stronger pavement using less
concrete. The FHWA is encouraged to continue its research and
evaluation on post-tensioned concrete pavements in fiscal year
1997.
The FHWA has conducted extensive research on winter
maintenance activities over the years including ice and snow
removal equipment, chemicals for melted ice, and strategies and
concepts for keeping roads clear during winter storms. A recent
initiative involves anti-icing. Anti-icing is a revolutionary
new strategy for preventing a strong bond from forming between
snow or frost and the pavement surface. Salts and other
chemicals are prewetted or applied in liquid form just before
the snow or ice begins to form. One such chemical is calcium
magnesium acetate (CMA), a non-corrosive, environmentally-sound
substance made from corn. The FHWA is urged to support
continued research and development of CMA as a non-corrosive
anti-icer and test the use of CMA on new concrete and metal
surface on bridges in Chicago.
Structures.--The Committee recommends $13,558,000 for
structures research and development, which represents an
increase of $1,000,000 over the fiscal year 1996 enacted level,
and $8,442,000 below the budget estimate. An increase is
justified to advance the work in several areas, including
bridge management disciplines, high performance materials, and
non-destructive evaluation. As part of the fiscal year 1996
research program, FHWA was able to obtain significant cost
sharing with the private sector in response to a solicitation
on structures research. Not only is this partnering essential
in light of limited research funds, but the private sector's
involvement will accelerate the ultimate deployment of these
new technologies into practice. The Committee fully supports
this approach for leveraging federal resources with private
sector support and expects that this strategy will be
incorporated whenever possible throughout FHWA's research and
development program. The Committee would especially welcome
cost sharing in the high performance materials activity and
will carefully consider the success of these efforts in future
funding decisions.
Environment.--Because of budgetary limitations, the
Committee recommends $5,317,000, the same level of funding as
provided in fiscal year 1996.
Right-of-way.--The Committee recommendation makes no change
to the budget estimate of $322,000.
Policy research.--The Committee recommends $5,401,000, the
same amount as provided last year.
Planning.--The Committee recommends $5,969,000 for planning
research and directs that at least $2,000,000 of section 6005
funds be used to deploy TRANSIMS, an advanced travel modeling
project. This project will yield substantial benefits to state
governments and metropolitan planning organizations and is co-
funded with support from the Environmental Protection Agency,
the Federal Transit Administration, and intelligent
transportation system funds.
Although there is general agreement that TRANSIMS is the
highest priority in the planning research area, the Committee
is concerned about that the current and planned expenditures
for this project. FHWA estimates that an additional $13.2
million is needed to complete this project. The FHWA
administrator, after consultation with other supporting
agencies, is requested to submit a letter to both House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations before April 1, 1997,
detailing how costs could be better contained, paying
particular attention to reducing laboratory overhead charges,
or alternatively, reducing costs by funding less expensive
contractors for portions of this project.
Motor carrier.--Because of budgetary limitations and
inadequate justification of portions of the request, the
Committee recommends a level of $7,390,000 for motor carrier
research. This is the same amount as provided in 1996 and
should provide sufficient funding to continue all ongoing
projects. During the past few years, this program has grown
between 13 and 22 percent per year. A sizable infusion of
funding is also provided to motor carrier research activities
under FHWA's ITS/CVO program and the motor carrier safety
assistance program (MCSAP). Both of these accounts have seen
significant growth over the past few years.
Intelligent transportation systems (ITS).--For intelligent
transportation systems, the fiscal year 1997 budget estimate
totals $336,760,000, of which $223,760,000 is requested through
the general operating expenses limitation and $113,000,000 from
ISTEA. This is an increase of nearly $133,000,000 above the
$203,829,000 provided in fiscal year 1996, or an increase of 79
percent. Nearly all of the increase can be attributed to the
$100,000,000 request for model deployment of the integrated
intelligent transportation infrastructure that has been
identified and developed over the five-year course of the
program.
The ITS program has grown significantly over the past
several years. The General Accounting Office noted before the
Committee this year that total funding for the program has
increased from $22,000,000 in 1991 to a high of $246,000,000 in
1992; the program was funded at $203,829,000 in fiscal year
1996. Total funding for the six-year period (fiscal years 1991-
1996) is $1,040,000,000. Similarly, the total number of ITS
projects has grown measurably each year. The number of projects
has increased from 41 in 1991 to 305 in 1996.
The following charts illustrate the growth in
appropriations, the number of projects in the ITS program, and
the number of federally-funded intelligent transportation
systems studies and demonstrations by state:
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
The budget suggests that the ITS program is moving into a
new arena, emerging from an exploratory first phase of ITS
research and development to a second phase that gives equal
priority to mainstream deployment and a commitment to well-
defined long term research. Though the Committee is supportive
of the department's ongoing research and development efforts in
the ITS area, an increase of nearly $133,000,000, or almost 79
percent, cannot be supported one year prior to the
reauthorization of part B of title VI of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, particularly as the ITS
program moves from a research and development phase to
mainstream deployment. In addition, the Committee notes that
section 104(a) of title 23, U.S.C., authorizes the Secretary of
Transportation to deduct up to 3.75 percent of certain sums
authorized prior to apportionment for the administration of
federal-aid highways and for conducting highway research and
development activities. Contrary to permanent law, the budget
assumed an increase of one percentage point for fiscal year
1997 to fund principally the expanded ITS research, development
and deployment programs. Such a request is not within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations.
The following table depicts the 1996 program level, the
fiscal year 1997 budget estimate and the Committee's
recommendation for the intelligent transportation systems
program by activity:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997
Program 1996 program 1997 estimate recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intelligent transportation systems:
Research and development................................. $49,916,000 $42,935,000 $27,000,000
AHS/Advance crash avoidance.............................. 14,000,000 30,700,000 20,000,000
Architecture and standards............................... ............... 7,050,000 5,000,000
Operational tests........................................ 31,052,000 28,125,000 53,000,000
Evaluations.............................................. ............... 4,000,000 2,000,000
Mainstreaming............................................ ............... 950,000 ...............
Model deployment......................................... ............... 100,000,000 ...............
Program support.......................................... 10,034,000 10,000,000 8,000,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total, intelligent transportation systems.............. 105,002,000 223,760,000 115,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research and development.--The Committee recommends a total
of $27,000,000 for ITS research and development, which is
$22,916,000 below the enacted level of $49,916,000 and
$15,935,000 below the budget estimate. The Committee is
concerned about the expenses of the traffic management
laboratory and directs a substantial reduction in this area.
For commercial vehicle operations (CVO) research and
development, the Committee recommends $6,000,000, including the
$5,100,000 requested for the SAFER/MCSAP sites. FHWA should
endeavor to keep the primary focus of the CVO program on safety
considerations, to continue progress on the development of
vehicle- and carrier-specific SAFER systems, to improve the
communications between the roadside and the SAFER and MCMIS
information systems, and to use this advanced technology at as
many MCSAP sites as possible.
For crash avoidance research, the Committee recommends
$10,000,000. These funds, together with the funds included
under the operational test program and ISTEA funds, will allow
for substantial growth in NHTSA's program above the fiscal year
1996 level.
Automated highway systems (AHS).--The automated highway
systems consortium, assisted by FHWA, has made significant
progress in advancing the automated highway systems program.
Because of budgetary limitations, the Committee recommends
$20,000,000 to continue this progress. The Committee's
recommendation is $10,700,000 less than included in the budget
estimate, but $6,000,000 more than provided in fiscal year
1996.
To the maximum extent possible, the FHWA and the automated
highway systems consortium members shall 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 pursue vigorously efforts to
reduce the overhead costs of the AHS consortium and to take
steps to minimize the costs of the 1997 demonstration,
including associated outreach costs. No ISTEA or GOE funds are
provided to test heavy commercial vehicles in the 1997
demonstration or to conduct research or studies relevant to the
use of these vehicles in any part of the automated highway
system program. Foreseeable budgetary limitations will require
the participants to reexamine rigorously the complexity, scope
and vehicle mix of the prototype configuration subject to
validation testing; and to work towards completion of the
initial cooperative agreement within the timeline originally
specified.
Architecture and standards.--The Committee recommends
$5,000,000 for architecture and standards support, which is
$2,050,000 less than included in the budget estimate. The
Committee believes it is necessary to reduce expenses
associated with the cooperative agreements initiated with the
standards developing organizations and those entities
maintaining the systems architecture. The Department's efforts
to expedite timely and integrated ITS standards development is
of fundamental importance. The Committee fully supports FHWA's
work with ITS America's council of standards organizations and
various standards developing organizations to ensure the proper
coordination of standards. The Director of the joint program
office should ensure that the council has sufficient resources
and authority to support this coordination objective.
Operational tests.--The Committee recommends $53,000,000
for operational tests, to be allocated in the following manner:
$10,000,000 to advance real-time adaptive traffic control
technology; $3,000,000 for advanced vehicle control systems;
$10,000,000 for further development of the CVISN and to
complete its prototype testing; and $30,000,000 for the
integration of intelligent transportation infrastructure (ITI)
technologies. Each of these projects is of national
significance, is included in the budget estimate, and is
consistent with the intent of part B of title VI of ISTEA.
The Committee has reviewed the provisions of the
solicitation for model tests of ITI technologies and recognizes
the care and attention that went into the design of the
solicitation. Because of budgetary limitations, the Committee
was unable last year to provide sufficient funds for this
initiative, which seeks to realize the synergistic benefits of
many of the ITS technologies working together. The FHWA
received a strong response to its initial solicitation
regarding the ITI and will be unable to fund several promising
projects offered by state and local governments in partnership
with the private sector. In fact, FHWA expects to be able to
fund only two or three projects, but received 23 proposals. The
funds recommended herein will allow completion of the projects
begun in fiscal year 1996 and the initiation of approximately
two or three additional new projects in fiscal year 1997. These
projects will expedite the testing of ITI in metropolitan areas
that feature fully integrated transportation management systems
and strong regional, multimodal traveler information services.
In addition to the basic selection framework used in the
initial solicitation, FHWA shall award funds to those projects
that offer the greatest congestion relief opportunities to the
largest number of people, and shall also consider the unique
needs and demands of the international southern border regions
of the United States, particularly within Texas.
Because of budget limitations, the Committee is unable to
recommend the entire amount requested for operational testing
of important crash avoidance research technologies. The testing
of advanced vehicle control systems is judged so important that
the Committee expects ISTEA funds will be used to support the
new operational test project not funded within the GOE amounts.
Evaluations.--Because of budgetary limitations, $2,000,000
is provided for evaluations.
Mainstreaming.--No GOE funds are provided for mainstreaming
activities because of budgetary limitations.
Program management.--The Committee recommends $8,000,000
for program management, $2,034,000 below the enacted level and
$2,000,000 below the budget estimate. The ITS program is
becoming more focused, fewer operational tests are being
pursued, and the ITS joint program office is better organized
and staffed.
Broad input by the many ITS stakeholders in the formulation
of ITS research, program and deployment priorities and funding
is essential. In accordance with title VI (B) of ISTEA and the
cooperative agreement regarding the advisory committee charter
to ITS America, the Committee encourages the joint program
office to consult extensively with this advisory committee in
preparation of future budget requests. This review will allow
consultation with leaders from the corporate, academic, state,
and local communities, thus assisting the FHWA in identifying
programmatic and research needs and improving overall
management of the ITS program.
ISTEA mandated the creation of an information clearinghouse
as a repository for technical and safety data resulting from
the ITS program. The Department delegated to ITS America that
responsibility. The Committee has been informed that key
results from ITS programs are not being transferred to the ITS
clearinghouse on a timely basis. The result is that parties
seeking to advance ITS cannot easily access all available
information. The Committee directs the Department to send all
ITS-related reports and documents to the clearinghouse
immediately upon publication.
Technology assessment and deployment.--The Committee
recommendation includes $13,499,000, $1,000,000 more than
enacted for fiscal year 1996 and $1,347,000 below the level
included in the budget estimate. The office of technology
application is conducting a multi-faceted and innovative safety
deployment activity. To ensure a strong safety program, the
Committee directs that $3,560,000 be obtained from GOE and
$1,725,000 be obtained from section 6005 funds. In addition,
the Committee has included $350,000 to market and field test
the setting, posting, and enforcing of appropriate and safe
speed limits. With the recent repeal of the national maximum
speed limit, states and localities are looking to the
Department to provide guidance on how to set appropriate speed
limits within their jurisdictions. Partnerships to help state
and local governments set appropriate and enforceable speed
limits should be accelerated.
National advanced driving simulator.--The Committee has not
approved funding for the national advanced driving simulator
under the GOE account, but recommends that $14,500,000 of ISTEA
contract authority be used for this purpose. The Department has
repeatedly stated that the national advanced driving simulator
is of critical importance to advancing progress on the
objectives of the national ITS program. The Committee believes
that the national advanced driving simulator is an innovative,
high-risk analytical test project that has received limited
non-federal cost-sharing.
Local technical assistance program (LTAP).--$2,866,000 is
recommended for the local technical assistance program, the
same level as provided in fiscal year 1996. The Committee
objects to the use of local technical assistance 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, as it is not directly linked to
the purposes of LTAP.
Cost allocation study.--The Committee recommendation
includes $300,000 for the cost allocation study. The funds
provided will help FHWA develop software, data, and procedures
for use by the states in conducting their own highway cost
allocation studies. The 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 does not judge continued use of section 6005 funds to
continue work on truck size and weight issues appropriate.
South African program.--The Committee does not believe
these international activities should be supported with federal
highway trust fund revenue, but rather they should be supported
by the Department of State.
Technical assistance to Russia.--The Committee does not
believe technical assistance to Russia should be supported with
federal highway trust fund revenue, but rather they should be
supported by the Department of State.
Federal lands contamination site clean-up.--The Committee
recommends $2,500,000 for the environmental clean-up at the
materials laboratory site on the Denver federal center. The
Committee is disturbed to learn this year that appropriated
funds have been used since 1990 to address hazardous waste
clean-up activities at the site. At no time was the Committee
notified of the problems at the federal center, nor the costs
involved with the hazardous waste clean-up. FHWA should note
that the Committee has reduced the amount of funds recommended
for the contract programs by $2,500,000 in order to pay for
these expenses.
The Committee is concerned about the adequacy of FHWA's
plans to clean-up the variety of environmental releases that
have occurred at the Denver federal test facility. The
Committee directs FHWA to submit a letter to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations before March 31, 1997
outlining its approach to the clean-up, specifying the scope
and nature of its legal responsibilities compared to those of
the Army Corps of Engineers and the General Services
Administration. In addition, the report should include an
estimated timeline to fully comply with its responsibilities
under applicable state and federal law.
Budget submissions.--The Committee acknowledges the
increased detail of the fiscal year 1997 GOE budget request.
The submittal by the joint program office was especially useful
in terms of clearly displaying comparable fiscal year 1996 ITS
allocations and activities funded with ISTEA contract
authority. The ITS budget documents should serve as a model for
the fiscal year 1998 submission of the entire GOE research and
technology account.
Cathodic protection for bridges.--Cathodic protection has
long been recognized and recommended by the FHWA as the only
practical system which will stop bridge deck corrosion in
chloride contaminated bridge decks. The FHWA has extensively
promoted and provided technical assistance in the use of
cathodic protection systems through the FHWA demonstration
project program since 1975. Recent FHWA economic studies have
shown that cathodic protection systems should be considered for
use on structurally sound salt-contaminated bridge decks
carrying heavy traffic volumes in urban areas where traffic
disruption and delay costs resulting from deck replacement or
repair are significant. The FHWA is strongly encouraged to
continue its program to demonstrate the latest technology in
cathodic bridge protection systems when economic studies show
that these systems will be cost effective.
Recycled materials.--The Committee directs the FHWA to
continue its research on the use of recycled materials in
concrete pavement and landscaped margins. The potential exists
to use large scale quantities of plastic and paper waste as
well as microsilica in concrete pavement construction. The
Committee believes that a small investment in research could
yield large benefits in future years.
Border regions infrastructure issues.--The Committee
continues to be concerned about the condition and capacity of
border crossings and transportation corridors for trade in
North America as the United States, Mexico and Canada implement
the North America Free Trade Agreement. The Committee notes
that in 1993, the Federal Highway Administration issued its
report, ``Assessment of Border Crossings and Transportation
Corridors for North American Trade,'' which found that
arterials leading to and from border crossing sites are ``badly
in need of repair and upgrading'' and that federal highway
funds had not been sufficiently allocated to meet the
infrastructure needs along the borders with Mexico and Canada.
In 1994, the Committee requested specific recommendations to
address the pressing needs at the borders created by the
inadequate levels of funding. A report was released in March
1994, but fell short of providing specific recommendations and
did not contain a viable means of financing a wide range of
improvements along the borders.
The Committee supports efforts by the department to
participate in the exchange of technical and professional
expertise with other federal agencies and with the governments
of Mexico and Canada to enhance transportation projects and
improve infrastructure initiatives in these regions, including
the intelligent transportation infrastructure border crossing
operational tests.
Further, the Committee directs the Federal Highway
Administration to give high priority to transportation needs
along the border regions in its grant programs and
discretionary funding opportunities and to incorporate border
infrastructure development projects within the National Highway
System's corridors of national significance. The Committee also
expects the Department to consider these needs when providing
Congress with its proposal to reauthorize the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
Highway-Related Safety Grants
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(highway trust fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... ($11,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... (2,049,000)
Recommended in the bill................................. (2,049,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... (-8,951,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................................
A liquidating cash appropriation of $2,049,000 is
recommended to assist states and localities in implementing the
highway safety standards administered by the Federal Highway
Administration. These standards cover traffic control devices,
highway surveillance, and highway-related aspects of pedestrian
safety. The Committee has not provided any limitation on
obligations because the budget requested that the highway-
related safety grant program be combined with NHTSA's section
402 program.
Federal-Aid Highways
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(highway trust fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.................. ($19,200,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................ (19,800,000,000)
Recommended in the bill.......................... (19,800,000,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.............. (+600,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997............ .....................
The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation
of $19,800,000,000 for the federal-aid highways program. This
is identical to the budget request and $600,000,000 more than
the fiscal year 1996 appropriation level.
An estimated $3,100,000,000 of the recommended liquidating
cash appropriation is to continue the construction of the
interstate highway system. The balance of the funds is
primarily for payments to the states for the national highway
program, the surface transportation program, interstate
maintenance, interstate substitutions, bridge replacement and
rehabilitation, the congestion mitigation and air quality
improvement program, certain planning and research programs,
emergency relief, and the administrative costs of the Federal
Highway Administration as discussed under the limitation on
general operating expenses.
federal-aid highways programs
Federal-aid highways and bridges are managed through a
federal-state partnership. States and localities maintain
ownership and responsibility for maintenance, repair and new
construction of roads. State highway departments have the
authority to initiate federal-aid projects subject to FHWA
approval of plans, specifications, and cost estimates. The
federal government provides financial support for construction
and repair through matching grants, the terms of which vary
with the type of road.
There are almost four million miles of public roads in the
United States and approximately 577,000 bridges. The federal
government provides grants to states to assist in financing the
construction and preservation of about 945,000 miles (24
percent) of these roads, which represents an extensive
interstate system plus key feeder and collector routes.
Highways eligible for federal aid carry about 85 percent of
total U.S. Highway traffic.
Federal-aid highways funds are made available through the
following major system-related programs:
National highway system.--The Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 authorized--and
the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995
subsequently established--the National Highway System (NHS).
This 160,000-mile road system is the culmination of years of
effort by many organizations, both public and private, to
identify routes of National significance. It includes all
Interstate routes, a large percentage of urban and rural
principal arterials, the defense strategic highway network, and
major strategic highway connectors, and is estimated to carry
up to 70 percent of commercial truck traffic and 40 percent of
all vehicular traffic. A state may choose to transfer up to 50
percent of the NHS funds to the surface transportation program
category. If the Secretary approves, 100 percent may be
transferred. The Federal share for the NHS is 80 percent,
except for the Interstate portion where it is generally 90
percent, with an availability period of 4 years.
Surface transportation program.--ISTEA also established the
Surface Transportation Program (STP). The STP is a very
flexible program that may be used by the states and localities
for any roads (including NHS) that are not functionally
classified as local or rural minor collectors. These roads are
collectively referred to as Federal-aid highways. Bridge
projects paid for with STP funds are not restricted to Federal-
aid highways but may be on any public road. Transit capital
projects are also eligible under this program. The total
funding for the STP may be augmented by the transfer of funds
from other programs and by equity adjustments which may be used
as if they were STP funds. Once distributed to the states, STP
funds must be used according to the following percentages: 10
percent for safety construction, 10 percent for transportation
enhancement, 50 percent divided among areas of over 200,000
population and remaining areas of the State, and 30 percent for
any area of the state. Areas of 5,000 population or less are
guaranteed an amount based on previous Secondary funding. The
Federal share for the STP program is 80 percent with a 4-year
availability period.
Each state receives an amount in addition to its regular
apportionments so that its total funding reaches a legislative
percentage established in ISTEA. This additional amount is
called ``hold harmless.'' Hold harmless funds are used as if
they are STP funds except that only one-half of the funds
received are subject to set-asides and sub-state distribution
requirements of the STP.
Each state is also guaranteed that its apportionments for
the current fiscal year and its allocations for the previous
fiscal year will be an amount that is at least equal to 90
percent of the state's contributions to the highway account of
the Highway Trust Fund. The additional amount is called the
``90 percent of payments guarantee.'' Funds are distributed in
the same manner as Hold Harmless funds.
Interstate construction.--The designation of a 40,000-mile
interstate system was authorized by Congress in 1944 to serve
the needs of national defense, to link the nation's largest
cities, and to connect with key Canadian and Mexican highways
at suitable border points. Since 1944, the system has gradually
been expanded, now encompassing 42,794 miles of designated
routes. From December 1994 to December 1995, an additional 15
miles of the interstate system were opened to traffic. This
brings the total number of miles open to traffic as of December
31, 1995, to 42,764 miles, or 99.9 percent of the total system.
In addition, the remaining 30 miles included 25 miles under
construction and 5 miles under design development and right-of-
way acquisition. Funding authorization for this program
terminated in FY 1995.
Bridge replacement and rehabilitation program.--This
program is continued by the ISTEA to provide assistance for
bridges on public roads including a discretionary set-aside for
high cost bridges. Bridges on Indian reservation roads are
given special attention--besides the inventorying and
inspection of these bridges, one percent of a state's annual
bridge apportionment is to be used for such eligible projects.
Fifty percent of a state's bridge funds may be transferred to
the NHS or the STP.
Interstate maintenance.--This program, established by
ISTEA, basically replaces the I-4R program. It finances
projects to rehabilitate, restore, and resurface the interstate
system. Reconstruction of bridges, interchanges, and over-
crossings along existing interstate routes is also an eligible
activity if it does not add capacity other than high occupancy
vehicle (HOV) and auxiliary lanes.
Interstate system reimbursement.--This program established
by ISTEA provides a new category of funding for the purpose of
reimbursing states for their cost of constructing segments of
the interstate system without Federal assistance in the early
days of the interstate construction program. Funds are used as
STP funds, except that one-half of the amount received by a
state is not subject to the set-asides or sub-state
distribution rules of that program.
Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement
program.--This program provides funds to states to improve air
quality in non-attainment areas for ozone and carbon monoxide.
A wide range of transportation activities are eligible, as long
as DOT, after consultation with EPA, determines they are likely
to help meet national ambient air quality standards. If a state
has no non-attainment areas, the funds may be used as if they
were STP funds.
Federal lands highways.--This program, authorizations for
which are through four categories prior to ISTEA, are now
provided through three categories: Indian reservation roads,
parkways and park roads, and public lands highways (which
incorporates the previous forest highways category). Funds are
allocated on the basis of relative needs except that the forest
highway portions of public lands highways and Indian
reservation roads are allocated by administrative formula.
Minimum allocation.--Each state is guaranteed an amount so
that its percentage of total apportionments in each fiscal year
of interstate construction, interstate maintenance, interstate
substitution, national highway system, bridge program, surface
transportation program, scenic byways, and safety belt and
motorcycle helmet grants, plus allocations received in the
prior year, must not be less than 90 percent of the state's
percentage of estimated Highway Trust Fund contributions. The
contributions used in the calculation are from two years prior
to the current fiscal year--the latest year for which data are
available.
Emergency relief.--This program provides for the repair and
reconstruction of Federal-aid highways and Federally-owned
roads which have suffered serious damage as the result of
natural disasters or catastrophic failures. ISTEA modified
previous law slightly; the territorial limitation was raised to
$20,000,000 per fiscal year, and the number of days a state or
territory has to make emergency repairs in order to receive 100
percent federal share was increased to 180 days. The January
1996 flooding in the mid-Atlantic, Northeast, and Northwest
states caused considerable damage to Federal-aid highways with
estimated repair costs far exceeding available emergency
program funding. To help meet immediate emergency needs, FHWA
borrowed funds from the interstate discretionary account (as
authorized in title 23 U.S.C.). Subsequently, in P.L. 104-134,
the Congress approved supplemental funding to cover the above
emergency expenses.
highway trust fund financing mechanism
The highway trust fund was originally established in the
U.S. Treasury in accordance with provisions of the Highway
Revenue of 1957, as amended (23 U.S.C. 12 note). It has been
extended several times, most recently by the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240).
Amounts equivalent to taxes on gasoline, diesel fuel, special
motor fuels, tires, commercial motor vehicles, and truck use
are designated by the Act to be appropriated and transferred
from the general fund of the Treasury to the trust fund. These
transfer are made at least monthly on the basis of estimates by
the Secretary of the Treasury, subject to adjustments in later
transfers based on the amount of actual tax receipts. Amounts
available in the fund in excess of outlay requirements are
invested in public debt securities and interest thereon is
credited to the fund. There are also credited to the fund
repayable advances from the general fund, as authorized and
made available by law, to meet outlay requirements in excess of
available revenues during a portion of a fiscal year, if
necessary.
The Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) of 1982
established a mass transit account within the trust fund to be
funded by one-ninth of the excise tax collections under
sections 4041 and 4081 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.)
imposed after March 31, 1983. The funds from this account are
used for expenditures in accordance with section 21 of the
Federal Transit Act.
Subsequent legislation has increased the total federal tax
levied on each gallon of gasoline to 18.3 cents, of which 12
cents is applied to the highway account, and 2 cents to the
mass transit account.
Amounts required for outlays to carry out the federal-aid
highway program are appropriated to the Federal Highway
Administration. Other charges to the trust fund are made by the
Secretary of the Treasury for transfers of certain taxes to the
land and water conservation fund and to the aquatic resources
trust fund, for refunds of certain taxes, repayment of advances
from the general fund, and for the interest on advances. The
amendments to the Internal Revenue Code in the 1982 STAA
related to the highway trust fund require that before an
apportionment is made, the Secretary of the Treasury must
determine that adequate revenues will be available to meet
these expenditures within 24 months after the close of the
fiscal year for which the apportionment is made.
highway trust fund spending versus receipts
In recent years, there has been much discussion about
alleged shortfalls in the amount spent by the federal
government for highway programs compared to the amount of
highway user taxes it collects. Charges have been made that
highway spending has been set significantly below the level of
taxes being collected in an effort to make the federal deficit
smaller. A closer examination of expenditures and receipts
shows that this is not the case. As can be seen from the table
in this section, total highway trust fund (highway account)
outlays have exceeded trust fund tax receipts in 13 of the 21
years since 1976. Because of this, the federal-aid highway
program has contributed roughly $16,487,000,000 to the budget
deficit during this time period.
Part of the confusion results from a failure to distinguish
between the unexpended and unobligated balances in the trust
fund. For example, there will be an estimated $9,400,000,000
cash balance in the highway trust fund's highway account at the
end of fiscal year 1995.
Following is a description of this situation contained in a
May 1989 GAO report:
According to FHWA, the balance in the Highway Account
has often been misunderstood, with many believing that
the balance represents excess cash that will not be
needed to pay commitments. This view, however, is not
an accurate portrayal of the Highway Account balance
since these funds are, in fact, needed to pay
outstanding commitments. It should also be noted that
he Highway Trust Fund exists only as an accounting
record. User taxes are actually deposited in the U.S.
Treasury and amounts equivalent to these taxes are
transferred to the Trust Fund as needed.
How the Trust Fund functions becomes clearer when it
is compared with an individual's charge account. For
discussion purposes, assume that an individual has
$1,000 in cash from previous monthly paychecks but also
has outstanding charges amounting to over $1,500. In
this case, the $1,000 in cash cannot be considered
excess because it is needed to pay the incoming
charges. On the other hand, the individual is also not
in a deficit situation since at he end of the month his
or her $900 paycheck will be available to help pay the
outstanding charges. This scenario is repeated in each
succeeding month. Thus, the cash the individual has on-
hand plus a future paycheck helps to ensure there will
be sufficient funds to pay all outstanding charges.
Similarly, according to FHWA Office of Policy Development
data, the Highway Account had a balance of $9 billion at the
end of fiscal year 1988, which is analogous to the $1,000 cash-
on-hand. At the same time, these FHWA data show that unpaid
commitments (charge account balance) amounted to almost $31
billion; $22 billion more than the account balance. This
situation, however, is acceptable under a reimbursable system
because, although commitments to make payment have been made,
payment is not made until the states submit actual bills for
completed work at a later date. In the interim, revenues, like
the individual's paycheck in the previous example, continue to
accrue in the Highway Account.
The Committee also notes that cumulative highway account
tax receipts since 1957 are expected to total approximately
$320 billion and cumulative highway outlays are expected to
total approximately $329 billion by the end of fiscal year
1986. The principal reason for current cash balance is the
interest paid to the fund from the general fund of the
Treasury. These intragovernmental transfers from the general
fund to the trust fund have exceeded $20 billion since the
highway trust fund was established in 1957. However, such
transfers have no effect on the federal deficit. This mechanism
is explained in a February 1990 Congressional Research Service
report as follows:
While specific taxes and premiums are often levied on
segments of the population to help cover a trust fund
program's expenditures, trust funds also receive
``income'' from the government--i.e., ``credit'' from
one government account to another--or what in essence
is paper income. No economic resources are moved, no
actual money collected.
Following is a table of federal highway trust fund spending
compared to receipts for fiscal years 1976 to 1996:
HIGHWAY TRUST FUND STATUS (HIGHWAY ACCOUNT)
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trust fund Interest
Fiscal year Income Expenditure balance Tax receipts income
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1976............................ $6,000 $6,520 $9,077 $5,413 $587
TQ.............................. 1,690 1,758 9,009 1,676 14
1977............................ 7,302 6,147 10,164 6,709 593
1978............................ 7,567 6,058 11,673 6,905 662
1979............................ 8,046 7,155 12,565 7,189 857
1980............................ 7,647 9,212 10,999 6,620 1,027
1981............................ 7,434 9,174 9,260 6,305 1,129
1982............................ 7,822 8,035 9,047 6,743 1,079
1983............................ 8,853 8,838 9,062 7,777 1,076
1984............................ 11,533 10,384 10,212 10,507 1,026
1985............................ 12,906 12,756 10,361 11,800 1,106
1986............................ 13,305 14,180 9,486 12,251 1,054
1987............................ 12,728 12,802 9,412 11,793 935
1988............................ 13,645 14,038 9,019 12,836 809
1989............................ 15,134 13,602 10,551 14,358 776
1990............................ 13,453 14,375 9,629 12,472 981
1991............................ 15,303 14,686 10,246 14,494 809
1992............................ 16,572 15,518 11,300 15,664 908
1993............................ 16,863 16,641 11,523 16,046 817
1994............................ 15,414 19,011 7,927 14,660 754
1995............................ 20,967 19,472 9,421 20,419 548
1996 estimate................... 22,270 20,384 11,307 21,622 648
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... 262,454 260,746 .............. 244,259 18,195
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
limitation on obligations
Limitation, fiscal year 1996..................... \1\($17,550,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................ (17,714,000,000)
Recommended in the bill.......................... (17,550,000,000)
Bill compared with:
Limitation, fiscal year 1996................ (--)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997........... (-164,000,000)
\1\Excludes reductions of $15,888,500 to comply with working capital
fund, awards, and administrative provisions, and $1,146,000 to comply
with Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.
-The accompanying bill includes language limiting fiscal
year 1997 federal-aid highway obligations to $17,550,000,000,
the same level as provided in fiscal year 1996. An additional
$2,055,000,000 is estimated to be obligated for federal-aid
highways exempt from the obligation limitation in the bill.
Therefore, total fiscal year 1997 obligations for federal-aid
highways will be $19,605,000,000.
-The Committee has denied the request to: (1) place
separate obligation limitations on various appropriated and
contract-authority funded demonstration projects; (2) place the
bonus program under the federal-aid highways limitation; (3)
include a set-aside of $30,000,000 for highway and highway
safety construction; (4) include a set-aside of $15,000,000 for
the Symms Recreational Trails program; (5) include a set-aside
of $20,000,000 for a construction skill training program; (6)
include a set-aside of $15,000,000 for a congestion pricing
program; and (7) restrict funding for the timber bridge
program.
-A tabular summary of the programs exempt from the
obligation limitation follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program 1996 enacted 1997 proposed Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency relief.......................................... $291,340,000 $100,000,000 $100,000,000
Minimum allocation........................................ 802,961,000 659,802,000 659,802,000
ISTEA demos............................................... 1,047,718,000 555,000,000 1,054,198,000
Bonus limitations......................................... 189,488,000 ................ 241,000,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 2,331,507,000 1,314,802,000 2,055,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the following table reflects an estimated
distribution of obligations by program category, the bill
includes a limitation applicable only to the total of certain
federal-aid highways spending.
FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS PROGRAM ESTIMATED OBLIGATIONS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Program -----------------------------------------------------
1996 enacted 1997 estimate 1997 recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject to limitation:
National highway system............................... $3,277,151 $3,012,518 $3,012,518
Surface transportation program........................ 4,306,633 5,443,030 5,421,254
Bridge program........................................ 2,515,200 2,312,107 2,312,107
Interstate maintenance................................ 2,515,200 2,438,466 2,438,466
Interstate system reimbursement....................... 1,820,593 1,673,621 1,673,621
Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement..... 950,984 861,078 861,078
Donor state bonus..................................... 475,030 430,957 430,957
Intelligent transportation systems.................... 103,447 113,000 113,000
Federal lands highways................................ 437,626 425,768 425,768
Administration and research........................... 618,509 753,205 610,981
Applied research and technology....................... 41,236 41,000 41,000
Miscellaneous programs................................ 68,081 74,250 74,250
Funding restoration................................... 266,522 135,000 135,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, limitation.............................. 17,533,676 17,714,000 17,550,000
Exempt from limitation:
Emergency relief:
Regular program................................... 236,838 100,000 100,000
Supplemental...................................... 54,502 ................ ................
Minimum allocation.................................... 802,961 659,802 659,802
Federal-aid highways demos............................ 1,047,718 555,000 1,054,198
Bonus limitation...................................... 189,488 ................ 241,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, exempt.................................. 2,331,507 1,314,802 2,055,000
=====================================================
Grand total, Federal-aid highways................. 19,897,695 19,028,802 19,605,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A list of the federal highway programs under the limitation
follows:
Interstate Construction.
Interstate Maintenance.
Interstate Gap Closing.
Interstate 4R.
Interstate Discretionary--Construction.
Interstate Discretionary--4R Maryland.
Interstate Discretionary--4R.
Interstate Discretionary--Apportioned.
Interstate Discretionary--Discretionary.
Rail-Highway Crossings on Any Public Road.
Hazard Elimination.
Combined Road Plan.
Consolidated Primary.
Rural Secondary.
Urban System.
Highway Planning and Research.
Public Lands.
Indian Reservation Roads.
Parkways and Park Highways.
Forest Highways.
Special Urban High Density.
Special Bridge Replacement.
Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation--Apportioned,
Discretionary, and Talmadge Bridge.
Franconia Notch.
Bypass Highway Demonstration.
Urgent Supplemental Bridges.
Los Angeles Freight Transportation Demo, CA-131(a).
Baton Rouge Interchange Congestion, Demo, LA-131.
Louisville Primary Connector Accel. Demo, KY-131(e).
Vermont Certification Demo-131(f).
Devils Lake Erosion Demo, ND-131(g).
Bridge Over Intracoastal Waterway Demo, FL-131(h).
Idaho Truck Safety/Railroad Elimination Demo-131(i).
Acosta Bridge, Florida.
Administration.
Studies (Sections 158, 159, 164 & 165 under P.L. 100-
17).
Demonstration Projects--149(d).
Strategic Highway Research Program.
Operation Lifesaver.
Congestion Pricing Pilot.
National Highway System.
Bridge Rehabilitation and Replacement.
Surface Transportation Program.
Interstate Substitution.
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality.
Donor State Bonus.
Metropolitan Planning.
Apportionment Adjustment.
Model Intermodal Transportation Plans.
Transportation Assistance Program.
Seismic Research and Development.
Fundamental Properties of Asphalt.
Eisenhower Transportation Fellowship.
Timber Bridge Research and Demonstration.
Intelligent Transportation Systems.
Ferry Boat Construction.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
University Transportation Centers.
University Research Institute.
Scenic Byways Technical Assistance.
Scenic Byways Interim Program.
Tax Evasion Project.
Safety Belt/Helmet Incentive Grants.
Alcohol Impaired Driving Countermeasures.
International Truck Registry Uniformity.
Applied Research and Development Program.
Border Crossings.
Infrastructure Investment Commission.
High Speed Rail Corridor Crossings.
Administration of obligation limitation.--The bill includes
language regarding the administration of this obligation
limitation. The provision provides for an equitable
distribution of the available obligational authority based upon
the funds apportioned by legislative or administrative formula
and upon funds allocated without a formula. In making such a
distribution, it is intended that discretionary and other non-
formula fund allocations also be considered in the distribution
of obligational authority. If these allocations are unknown at
the time obligational authority is initially made available to
the states, an estimated fair proportion of obligational
authority should be reserved for distribution at the
appropriate time.
Under the provision, total first quarter obligations are
limited to 12 percent, sufficient authority is provided to
prevent lapses, funds are to be redistributed after August 1,
1997, and amounts authorized for administrative expenses, the
federal lands program, the intelligent transportation systems
program, and amounts made available under sections 1040, 1047,
1064, 6001, 6005, 6006, 6023 and 6024 of Public Law 102-240 and
49 U.S.C. 5316, 5317 and 5338 are not to be distributed.
The Committee believes that there is adequate legislative
history with respect to the intentions of the Congress in
enacting annual limitations on obligations. The Committee is
reiterating, however, the language on pages 25 and 26 of House
Report 94-1221 stating that this limitation should not be used
by the Secretary as discretionary authority to distort the
priorities established in federal highway legislation. The
Committee expects the Secretary to control obligations in
accordance with Congressional intent and directs that the
Department of Transportation continue to provide, on a monthly
basis, a report on the cumulative amount of obligations by
state for each program in the federal-aid highways and highway
safety construction program categories. This report should
include the amount of unobligated contract authority available
to each state for each program, as well as a complete
description of any actions taken by the Department or the
Office of Management and Budget for the purpose of complying
with this obligation limitation.
Interstate-95.--The Committee believes that the
reconstruction, restoration and rehabilitation of the
interstate system is necessary to ensure the safety on the
nation's highways, to foster intermodalism and commerce, to
strengthen the role of transportation in economic growth, to
promote technology advancement, to protect the environment, and
to support communities through improved access and mobility.
The Committee encourages the Federal Highway Administration to
work with the states along I-95 to continue their investment in
the rehabilitation of the interstate system, and to consider
the impact on mobility and commerce if such investment is not
maintained.
Statewide transportation improvement program (STIP)
amendments.--The Committee is concerned that some states have
moved to amend their STIP plan without giving appropriate
notice or seeking appropriate comment from local elected
officials with jurisdiction over transportation planning. The
Committee notes that existing regulations require such notice
and comment before revising a statewide transportation
improvement program or STIP. The Committee recommends that the
Federal Highway Administration not release funds to a state
transportation agency until the aforementioned requirements are
met.
Federal lands.--Over the years, the Committee has expressed
its concern about several parkways and park roads that are in
need of improvement to eliminate longstanding hazardous road
conditions. Fatality and vehicle accident rates of these roads
are far above the national average because of their steep
grades, sharp curves and inadequate climbing and deceleration
lanes. Further, the hazardous conditions of these roads are
compounded by flooding, heavy snowfalls and other inclement
weather conditions which negatively affect the quality of the
roads and roadbeds themselves. The Committee believes that the
Federal Highway Administration should direct its attention to
assuring the timely completion of needed improvement projects
that pose significant safety problems and directs the FHWA to
report to the Committee within sixty days of enactment of this
Act on how it plans to address these problems.
Belford Ferry terminal.--The Committee directs the FHWA to
review the impacts to the environment and to boater safety that
would result from the construction and operation of a ferry
terminal in Comptons Creek in Middletown, New Jersey, and to
report any potential impacts to the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations. An assurance of no negative impacts must be
received by the Committee before the department may release any
funds for the permitting, design, or construction of a ferry
terminal in Comptons Creek in Middletown, New Jersey.
Southern Potomac River crossing.--As part of the Woodrow
Wilson draft environmental impact statement, an initial
analysis was performed on the potential demand for a southern
river crossing ten and fifteen miles south from the Woodrow
Wilson Bridge. These crossings were drawn from the first
regional transportation plan prepared in the 1960s. This
analysis showed that there was a substantial demand for a
southern crossing that could reduce future demand on the
Woodrow Wilson Bridge crossing by approximately ten percent in
2020.
Because of the interstate nature of this traffic, the FHWA,
in consultation with the state of Maryland and the Commonwealth
of Virginia, is asked to identify the issues that need to be
addressed to provide for these, or other possible southern
crossings, that would affect traffic on the Woodrow Wilson
Bridge crossing and meet future regional traffic demand. FHWA
should report its findings back to Congress within ninety days
of enactment of this Act.
intelligent transportation systems
The Committee directs the Federal Highway Administration to
distribute funds for intelligent transportation systems to the
following programs:
Utah advanced traffic management system................. $3,000,000
Hazardous materials intermodal monitoring system (NIER). 3,000,000
Houston, Texas.......................................... 2,400,000
Texas Transportation Institute.......................... 600,000
Inglewood, California................................... 1,000,000
Minnesota Guidestar..................................... 5,900,000
Moorhead, Minnesota..................................... 100,000
I-10 Mobile, Alabama Causeway........................... 4,000,000
National Transportation Center, Oakdale, New York....... 4,000,000
Nashville, Tennessee traffic guidance system............ 1,000,000
Operation Respond, Maryland............................. 1,000,000
Green light CVO project, Oregon......................... 5,000,000
Pennsylvania Turnpike................................... 4,000,000
National Capital region congestion mitigation........... 5,000,000
Advanced transportation weather information system,
University of North Dakota.......................... 1,000,000
Minnesota Guidestar.--Minnesota Guidestar continues to lead
in ITS research. The Committee commends those efforts and urges
Guidestar to continue to develop strong partnerships with the
private sector to serve as an example to other communities. The
Committee has included $5,900,000 for this project. Up to 25
percent of this amount may be made available to the University
of Minnesota's Center for Transportation Studies and the
Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs to support education,
research and training aspects of the project.
Moorhead, Minnesota.--The Committee has included $100,000
for ITS safety-related activities for automobile/rail conflicts
in Moorhead, Minnesota.
National Transportation Center, Oakdale, New York.--The
Committee has included $4,000,000 for the National
Transportation Center in Oakdale, New York, which shall be
available only for a NAFTA intermodal transportation center.
Advanced transportation weather information system,
University of North Dakota.--The Committee has provided
$1,000,000 for the advanced transportation weather information
system at the University of North Dakota. The Committee
understands that this system will be commercialized and, in
this context, directs the system's managers to provide a plan
to FHWA for phasing out federal support of this program.
I-5 Joint Powers Authority.--The Committee recognizes
interstate 5, from Orange County to Los Angeles County, as an
intermodal transportation corridor for which ISTEA funding and
fiscal year 1995 transportation appropriations have been
provided. Furthermore, the Committee recognizes that
significant transportation capacity increases can be achieved
within this corridor by using intermodal and intelligent
transportation technologies instead of relying solely on
conventional improvements. The Committee directs the FTA, FHWA
and the ITS joint program office to coordinate with and provide
assistance to the I-5 Consortium Cities Joint Powers Authority
and the California State Department of Transportation in the
design of a comprehensive transportation solution to the
corridor. The Committee directs the agencies to report on the
design plan and its progress to the department.
estimated fiscal year 1997 obligation limitation
The following table portrays estimated 1997 activity by
state for the Federal-aid highways program under the obligation
limitation recommended in the bill:
State Estimated distribution
Alabama................................................. $270,881,218
Alaska.................................................. 204,210,358
Arizona................................................. 196,623,391
Arkansas................................................ 175,531,892
California.............................................. 1,407,810,254
Colorado................................................ 199,550,979
Connecticut............................................. 353,976,008
Delaware................................................ 77,556,766
District of Columbia.................................... 78,997,146
Florida................................................. 599,468,910
Georgia................................................. 403,887,764
Hawaii.................................................. 121,854,616
Idaho................................................... 105,798,066
Illinois................................................ 661,070,063
Indiana................................................. 341,854,241
Iowa.................................................... 198,168,927
Kansas.................................................. 205,245,252
Kentucky................................................ 225,968,030
Louisiana............................................... 235,947,826
Maine................................................... 91,646,153
Maryland................................................ 265,826,755
Massachusetts........................................... 691,300,055
Michigan................................................ 467,462,764
Minnesota............................................... 252,556,263
Mississippi............................................. 183,673,772
Missouri................................................ 357,024,338
Montana................................................. 155,010,646
Nebraska................................................ 139,227,928
Nevada.................................................. 104,680,987
New Hampshire........................................... 85,639,022
New Jersey.............................................. 479,336,096
New Mexico.............................................. 169,258,849
New York................................................ 1,045,729,335
North Carolina.......................................... 399,616,648
North Dakota............................................ 102,166,673
Ohio.................................................... 595,041,508
Oklahoma................................................ 228,002,136
Oregon.................................................. 202,969,037
Pennsylvania............................................ 661,494,004
Rhode Island............................................ 85,935,380
South Carolina.......................................... 211,336,171
South Dakota............................................ 111,492,837
Tennessee............................................... 325,982,686
Texas................................................... 985,982,463
Utah.................................................... 125,812,946
Vermont................................................. 78,587,598
Virginia................................................ 341,742,613
Washington.............................................. 324,480,965
West Virginia........................................... 158,975,102
Wisconsin............................................... 292,008,163
Wyoming................................................. 111,394,365
Puerto Rico............................................. 76,204,035
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal.......................................... 15,972,000,000
Administration.......................................... 532,000,000
Federal Lands........................................... 426,000,000
Reserve................................................. 620,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 17,550,000,000
Right-of-Way Revolving Fund
(Limitation on Direct Loans)
(Highway Trust Fund)
Limitation, fiscal year 1996...................(.......................)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997..............(.......................)
Recommended in the bill........................(.......................)
Bill compared with:
Limitation, fiscal year 1996...............(.......................)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997..........(.......................)
The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968 authorized $300,000,000
for the establishment of a right-of-way revolving fund. The
fund is used to make interest-free 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.
The initial legislation for this program required the
states to construct the highway and reimburse the revolving
fund within seven years from the date of the advance. This
provision was necessary to assure that the fund would be
replenished and allow advances to be made to other states
requiring right-of-way acquisition. Since the 1968 Act, the
1973 Highway Act extended the required time limit for
construction to ten years and the 1976 Highway Act extended the
time limit indefinitely, if deemed necessary by the Secretary.
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 highways programs.
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 the state for right-of-way acquisition.
Using this method of funding, all reimbursements made to the
revolving fund may be reallocated to other states requiring
advances.
The right-of-way revolving fund was terminated in 1996. The
program continues, however, to be shown for reporting purposes
as balances remain outstanding. Like the budget request, a
prohibition on further obligations is recommended for 1997.
Motor Carrier Safety Grants
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(highway trust fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... ($68,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... (74,000,000)
Recommended in the bill................................. (74,000,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... (+6,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................................
The motor carrier safety grants program (MCSAP) is intended
to assist states in developing or implementing national
programs for the uniform enforcement of federal and state rules
and regulations concerning motor safety. The major objective of
this program is to reduce the number and severity of accidents
involving commercial motor vehicles. Grants are made to
qualified states for the development of programs to enforce the
federal motor carrier safety and hazardous materials
regulations and the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of
1986. The basic program is targeted at roadside vehicle safety
inspections of both interstate and intrastate commercial motor
vehicle traffic.
The Committee recommends the budget request of $74,000,000
in liquidating cash for this program.
limitation on obligations
The Committee recommends a $77,425,000 limitation on
obligations for motor carrier safety grants. This provides an
increase of $200,000 over the 1996 level and a decrease of
$7,575,000 below the budget request. The recommendation
provides the following allocation among MCSAP activities:
MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years
---------------------------------- Recommended in
1996 estimate 1997 request the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic grants to states....................................... $58,000,000 $63,537,500 $59,800,000
Traffic enforcement.......................................... 6,900,000 9,000,000 7,200,000
Hazardous materials training................................. 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
Research and development..................................... 500,000 500,000 500,000
Public education............................................. 850,000 500,000 500,000
CDL enforcement.............................................. 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
Truck and bus accidents...................................... 1,750,000 2,000,000 1,750,000
Uniformity grants............................................ 3,450,000 3,450,000 2,500,000
Uniformity working groups.................................... 450,000 450,000 350,000
Commercial vehicle information system........................ 1,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000
Drug interdiction assistance program \1\..................... 500,000 0 0
Administrative expenses...................................... 825,000 1,062,500 825,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 77,225,000 85,000,000 77,425,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Drug interdiction assistance is an eligible activity under the basic grants to states.
committee recommendations
Basic grants.--The Committee recommends $59,800,000 for
motor carrier basic grants to the states, an increase of
$1,800,000 over the fiscal year 1996 level and a decrease of
$3,737,500 from the budget. Each year, funding for the motor
carrier safety grant program has increased substantially. This
year, the budget requested a 10 percent increase in this
program, without states planning to take on any new activities.
The Committee has reduced this level of funding to a 3 percent
increase, which should allow states to improve on their current
level of roadside inspections, while taking into account normal
inflationary costs.
Assistance to border states.--The Committee directs that,
within the basic grant program, no less than $750,000 shall be
provided to states along the Mexican border to ensure the
safety of trade-related commercial vehicle traffic once
restrictions along the U.S.-Mexican border are reduced.
Out-of-service orders.--In fiscal year 1994, 20 percent of
the drivers and vehicles that were placed out-of-service (OOS)
violated those orders. In fiscal year 1995, this percentage
declined to 12.2 percent. The Committee applauds the office of
motor carrier's (OMC) efforts to reduce the number of drivers
and vehicles that disobey these orders. However, the Committee
believes a 12 percent violation rate is still too high.
Therefore, the Committee directs that $550,000 of the funds
available under the basic grant program be used to develop
innovative technologies to help reduce the OOS problem even
further.
The Committee is aware of one innovative program in West
Virginia that has significantly improved driver compliance with
OOS orders. Specifically, West Virginia has designed and tested
a new inspection form that includes a warning statement on the
back of the form highlighting the consequences of violating an
OOS order. The state's violation rate declined from 25 percent
to 4 percent after this countermeasure was implemented. Based
on the success of the West Virginia project, FHWA should
prepare a document, with the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
(CVSA) and the states, that warns drivers of the ramifications
of violating an OOS order. Some of the funds provided within
the $550,000 recommendation shall be used to cover printing
costs associated with this form.
Traffic enforcement.--The Committee has reduced the budget
estimate of $9,000,000 for traffic enforcement by $1,800,000.
This level is $300,000 more than enacted in 1996. This increase
will allow the OMC to continue work begun in 1996 that targeted
ten states with the highest number of commercial vehicle
fatalities. These ten states account for 48.8 percent of the
fatalities nationwide.
Truck and bus accidents.--The Committee recommends
$1,750,000 for truck and bus accidents, which is the same
amount as provided in fiscal year 1996. Last year, the funding
was used to assure that the SAFETYNET system was operating
nationwide and involve all states in using this system. Prior
to the end of fiscal year 1996, these targets were met, and all
states are currently uploading data. Therefore, the Committee
has not provided the requested increase. The 1997 funding
should be sufficient to increase the number of truck and bus
accidents reported and improve the quality of the report.
Uniformity grants.--The Committee has provided $2,500,000
for uniformity grants, which is $950,000 less than requested.
All 48 states required to join the International Registration
Plan (IRP) and 45 states required to join the International
Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA) have done so. Because this has been
achieved earlier than required and the uniformity grants is a
mature program, the Committee believes that less funding is
necessary for this program in fiscal year 1997.
Uniformity grants working group.--The Committee recommends
$350,000 for the uniformity grants working group, which is
$100,000 less than requested because states joined IRP and IFTA
earlier than the end of fiscal year 1996 deadline. As such, the
working group will not need to provide technical assistance to
states as they complete requirements.
Administrative takedown.--The Committee has held the
administrative takedown to the 1996 level of $825,000. This is
a reduction of $237,500 from the budget request. The Committee
directs that no more than $100,000 be used to fund the
Challenge program. In the past, OMC has used up to $332,569 to
fund this program, which severely reduces the amount of funding
available for state-related training activities. By reducing
the amount of funding available for the Challenge program, OMC
will be able to preserve its administrative takedown resources
for its intended purpose.
The Committee continues to believe that the Challenge
program is an important effort. However, this competition could
be funded in part, or wholly, with corporate and industry
support. As such, the Committee directs OMC to submit a letter
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations that
discusses mechanisms to make the Challenge program self-
supporting by fiscal year 1999. This letter should be issued by
February 1, 1997.
Travel.--In the past, OMC has held its important meetings
in conjunction with the CVSA conferences because most
inspectors and state motor vehicle personnel attend CVSA
conferences. This reduces or eliminates the need for motor
carrier personnel to travel to a variety of other meetings. The
Committee has been informed that OMC is now considering holding
separate federal grant meetings, which would require extensive
travel by motor carrier personnel. The committee directs OMC to
continue to combine these types of meetings with CVSA
conferences as a means to control travel costs in these austere
budgetary times.
Alameda Corridor Project Loan Program
Loan subsidy Limitation on
appropriation direct loans
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996. .................. ..................
Budget estimate, fiscal year
1997........................... $58,680,000 ($400,000,000)
Recommended in the bill......... .................. ..................
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year
1996....................... .................. ..................
Budget estimate, fiscal year
1997....................... -58,680,000 (-400,000,000)
The Committee has not provided loan principal of up to
$400,000,000 for the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority
within the FHWA's portfolio, as included in the budget
estimate. The Committee has provided $400,000,000 in loan
principal under ``Direct loan financing program'' within the
Federal Railroad Administration.
State Infrastructure Banks
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.........................................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... $250,000,000
Recommended in the bill.................................................
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -250,000,000
The National Highway System Designation Act of 1995
authorized up to ten pilot states to test state infrastructure
banks which have the potential to 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. To date, the department has
selected the following states to test the use of state
infrastructure banks: Arizona, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas,
Florida, South Carolina and Virginia. Two additional states are
expected to be selected soon.
The Committee has rejected the administration's proposal to
expand the state infrastructure program to include additional
states and to provide $250,000,000 in highway trust fund
revenue to capitalize the banks. The program request is
unauthorized; the pilot program is still in its very nascent
stages, and any further expansion of the program should be
considered in the context of the reauthorization of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act.
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. It succeeded the
National Highway Safety Bureau, which previously had
administered traffic and highway safety functions as an
organizational unit of the Federal Highway Administration.
NHTSA's programs currently are authorized under three major
laws: (1) the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act;
(2) Chapter 4 of title 23, United States Code; and (3) the
Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (MVICS). The
first law provides for the establishment and enforcement of
safety standards for vehicles and associated equipment and the
conduct of supporting research, including the acquisition of
required testing facilities and the operation of the national
driver register (NDR). Discrete authorizations were
subsequently established for the NDR under the National Driver
Register Act of 1982.
Title 23 U.S.C. chapter 4 provides for coordinated national
highway safety programs (section 402) to be carried out with
the states together with supporting highway safety research,
development, and demonstration programs (section 403). The
Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-690) authorized a
new drunk driving prevention program (section 410) to make
grants to states to implement and enforce drunk driving
prevention programs.
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1991 included amendments to title 23. It reauthorized section
402 formula grants, provided for modified section 410 alcohol-
impaired driving countermeasures grants, and authorized new
section 153 safety belt and motorcycle helmet grants. Section
153(j) grants were concluded in fiscal year 1994 and replaced
by section 153(h) sanction provisions. ISTEA also authorized
additional funding for the national driver register and for an
expanded drug recognition expert training program.
Title 23 was subsequently amended by provisions in the
National Highway System (NHS) Designation Act, 1995. The
national maximum speed limit was repealed, thus allowing states
to set their own speed limits. Penalty transfer provisions of
section 153 were repealed for states failing to enact
motorcycle helmet usage laws. In addition the NHS Designation
Act requires states to enact ``zero tolerance'' alcohol laws to
qualify for the section 410 basic grant rather than the
supplemental grant previously. Failure to do so within three
years would result in a five percent reduction in federal
highway grants in fiscal year 1999 and ten percent in
succeeding years. The National Driver Register was reauthorized
for fiscal year 1995 and 1996.
The third law (MVICS) provides for the establishment of
low-speed collision bumper standards, consumer information
activities, diagnostic inspection demonstration projects,
automobile content labeling, and odometer regulations. This law
also established the Secretary's responsibility, which was
delegated to NHTSA, for the administration of mandatory
automotive fuel economy standards. A 1992 amendment to the
MVICS established automobile content labeling requirements.
The Committee recommends new budget authority and
obligation limitations for a total program level of
$299,372,000 for NHTSA programs and activities in fiscal year
1997. This is $19,071,000 more than was provided in fiscal year
1996. The following table summarizes the fiscal year 1996
program levels, the fiscal year 1997 program requests, and the
Committee's recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Program ------------------------------------ Recommended in
1996 enacted \1\ 1997 estimate the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations and research................................... $125,201,000 $158,513,000 $132,272,000
Highway traffic safety grants \2\......................... 155,100,000 \3\193,600,000 \3\167,100,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 280,301,000 352,113,000 299,372,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
TRAFFIC SAFETY TRENDS
In 1992, the nation experienced the lowest number of
highway fatalities despite an increasing amount of travel on
the roadways. This trend reversed itself in 1993, with traffic
fatalities increasing to 40,150, or 900 more fatalities than in
1992. The latest NHTSA data indicates fatalities in 1995 were
41,700, or 1,550 higher than the 1993 level. Likewise, the
overall fatality rate leveled off to 1.7 deaths per 100 million
vehicle miles traveled since 1993. The following charts show
these safety trends.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Operations and Research
(Including Highway Trust Fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\..................... $125,201,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 158,513,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 132,272,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... +7,071,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -26,241,000
\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 Committee recommends a total of $132,272,000 for NHTSA
operations and research in fiscal year 1997. This represents an
increase of $7,071,000 above the level provided in fiscal year
1996 and $26,241,000 below the budget request. Approximately 40
percent of the reduction from the budget estimate involves a
transfer of funding for the national advanced driving simulator
to the Federal Highway Administration. The bill specifies that
$81,895,000 shall be derived from the general fund and
$50,377,000 shall be derived from the highway trust fund. In
addition, the bill includes language to limit a portion of the
obligational availability of the operations and research
appropriations to a three-year period. Budget and staffing data
for this appropriation are as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
--------------------------------------------------
Recommended in
1996 enacted\1\ 1997 estimate the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety performance........................................... $12,255,000 $ 14,364,000 $12,864,000
(Positions).............................................. (95) (95) (95)
Safety assurance............................................. 18,197,000 20,244,000 19,518,000
(Positions).............................................. (103) (103) (103)
Highway safety............................................... 44,417,000 49,153,000 43,993,000
(Positions).............................................. (203) (203) (203)
Research and analysis........................................ 44,437,000 67,964,000 49,699,000
(Positions).............................................. (132) (132) (132)
Office of the administrator.................................. 3,820,000 3,816,000 3,876,000
(Positions).............................................. (41) (41) (41)
General administration....................................... 8,838,000 9,130,000 8,830,000
(Positions).............................................. (90) (90) (90)
Grant administration reimbursement........................... -6,158,000 -6,158,000 -6,158,000
Accountwide adjustments...................................... -605,000 ............... -350,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 125,201,000 158,513,000 132,272,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 Committee recommends the following changes to the
budget request for this appropriation:
Safety performance:
Delete funding for fuel economy EIS................. -$1,500,000
Safety assurance:
Minor reduction in vehicle safety compliance........ -186,000
Hold odometer fraud to 1996 level................... -40,000
Delete funding for domestic labeling program........ -500,000
Highway safety:
Fund two injury control communities instead of four. -900,000
Reduce funding for target population education...... -137,000
Reduce funding for new state and communities program
evaluation........................................ -900,000
Delete funding for new rail-highway demonstration... -3,000,000
Increase speed and unsafe driving prevention........ +200,000
Delete funding for state and community programs..... -423,000
Research and analysis:
Reduce funding for biomechanics..................... -1,000,000
Reduce new crash avoidance efforts.................. -3,000,000
Fund NADS through ITS program....................... -10,500,000
Reduce new initiatives under data analysis.......... -465,000
Reduce increase in state data program............... -800,000
Reduce funding for PNGV............................. -2,500,000
Office of the administrator:
Increase funding for international harmonization.... +60,000
General administration:
Reduce funding for strategic planning............... -200,000
Reduce contracts under economic analysis............ -100,000
Accountwide adjustments:
Reduction in training............................... -50,000
Hold non-pay inflation to 1.5 percent increase...... -300,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Net change to the budget estimate............... -26,241,000
Fuel economy.--The Committee recommends decreasing the fuel
economy program by $1,500,000. NHTSA has not adequately
addressed the need for developing an environmental impact
statement for fuel economy standards over multiple model years.
If NHTSA wishes to alter fuel economy standards, the Committee
believes that the agency should continue to establish corporate
average fuel economy (CAFE) standards, as it has done in the
past, for only one to two model years at a time. In developing
standards in this manner, the agency can prepare environmental
assessments in-house and will not require an expensive contract
program to develop an EIS.
The Committee has included a general provision (sec. 323)
that prohibits funds from being used to prepare, prescribe, or
promulgate CAFE standards for automobiles that differ from
those previously enacted. The limitation does not preclude the
Secretary of Transportation, in order to meet lead time
requirements of the law, from preparing, proposing, and issuing
a CAFE standard for model year 1999 automobiles that is
identical to the CAFE standard established for such automobiles
for model year 1998.
Uniform tire quality grading standards.--The bill includes
a provision prohibiting any agency funded in this Act from
planning, finalizing, or implementing any rulemaking which
would require passenger car tires be labeled to indicate their
low rolling resistance.
Vehicle safety compliance.--The Committee has reduced the
budget request of $6,033,000 for vehicle safety compliance by
$186,000. This funding was to be used to test compressed
natural gas (CNG) tanks. Although this is a new standard for
NHTSA, there are very few CNG tanks on the market to date. Due
to budget constraints, the Committee suggests postponing this
test until next year.
Odometer fraud.--Due to budget constraints, the Committee
has held odometer fraud to $60,000, which is the same level as
enacted in 1996.
Vehicle domestic content labeling.--The Committee has
denied the requested $500,000 for vehicle domestic content
labeling. This is a new initiative for NHTSA, in which the
agency planned to audit four car lines and two manufacturers to
determine the domestic content of their vehicles.
Safe communities injury control program.--The Committee has
provided $900,000 for the safe communities injury control
program, which is $900,000 less than requested. Last year,
Congress provided sufficient funding to establish two injury
control programs. The Committee believes that injury control is
a very important objective. Currently, there are more than 5
million injuries attributed to automobiles accidents per year--
including many which could have been prevented. One means to
reduce these injuries is for local communities to take more
responsibility for preventing these traffic-related injuries
and to partner with the health care community. As such, the
Committee has provided sufficient funding to allow NHTSA to
establish two additional injury control programs to evaluate
the effectiveness of the safe communities approach in reducing
traffic related injuries and fatalities.
Rail-highway crossing.--The Committee has denied the
$3,000,000 funding request for a new rail-highway crossing
program. This initiative sought to provide communities with
grants to support crossing safety and trespasser prevention
programs. Much of this funding request was to be used for
salaries within the grant program. Although the Committee
believes that this type of program is a worthy initiative, a
similar program is already in place through Operation
Lifesaver. Furthermore, section 402 grants can be used for
rail-highway crossing activities, as well. Developing a
community-based grant program within NHTSA's highway safety
program would be duplicative. If the program is to be
effective, it should be focused on the state level, where
Operation Lifesaver already has at least one grade crossing
group in 49 of the 50 states. These groups are funded through
the federal government and by private contributions.
Speed and unsafe driving.--The Committee recommends
$756,000 for speed and unsafe driving prevention activities,
which is $200,000 more than requested. The National Highway
System (NHS) Designation Act of 1995 returned regulation of
speed limits to the states. To date, 18 states have raised
their speed limits, although not uniformly. A fact sheet
released by NHTSA shows that excessive speed is a factor in 30
percent of all fatal crashes. As vehicle speed increases, so
does the severity of the crashes. Preliminary data in three
states has tied a rise in traffic fatalities to speed
increases. For example, Missouri recorded a 28 percent increase
in traffic deaths in April 1996 compared with last year.
As part of the NHS Designation Act, a safety report must be
submitted to Congress by September 30, 1997 that identifies the
costs to states of deaths and injuries resulting from motor
vehicle crashes and the benefits associated with the repeal of
the national speed limit. NHTSA has not requested any funding
for this study; however, due to its importance and the
anecdotal information about the impact of states increasing
their speed limits, the Committee has appropriated $200,000 to
assure that NHTSA has adequate funds available to monitor the
costs and benefits associated with the repeal of the national
speed limit.
State and community program evaluations.--The Committee has
reduced funding for this new initiative from the $1,000,000
requested to $100,000. This funding should be sufficient to
continue analyzing the effectiveness of breath alcohol ignition
interlock devices to determine if these devices are successful
in preventing drunk drivers from becoming repeat offenders. If
additional funding is available after completing this
evaluation, state and community representatives should examine
other innovative initiatives as well.
Bicycle safety program.--Each year in the United States,
there are over 580,000 bicycle injuries. Of this amount, there
are approximately 800 fatalities and between 20,000 and 50,000
bicycle injuries serious enough to require hospitalization or
rehabilitation. Children between the ages of 5 and 14 are the
most common victims of bicycle injury head trauma, since they
rely most on bicycles for their principal mode of
transportation and often lack on-road bicycle experience.
Greater efforts are necessary to insure that children are
trained to be safe bicyclists.
A recent national bicycling and walking study resulted in a
recommendation to reduce the number of bicyclists and
pedestrians killed or injured by 10 percent. To meet this
objective, the Committee directs NHTSA to more vigorously
promote bicycle safety and training. The Committee urges NHTSA
to collaborate with organizations that are working on bicycle
safety initiatives, including those implementing bicycle safety
and training programs, as well as with institutes conducting
human factors research relating to bicycle safety measures.
Other highway safety programs.--Due to budget constraints,
the Committee is holding the target population increase to 20
percent instead of 31 percent and is not funding the evaluation
initiative for state and community programs. In the past, these
evaluation initiatives have been funded from the administrative
takedown.
Biomechanics.--The Committee has provided $6,450,000 for
biomechanics, which is $560,000 more than enacted in fiscal
year 1996 but $1,000,000 less than requested. A privately
funded initiative will finance three new biomechanics centers.
These centers will conduct research on highway traffic and
impact injuries, and will expand the early warning system that
identifies problems in vehicle design. Results from work
conducted by these centers will be shared with NHTSA and its
four biomechanics centers. Providing additional funds for NHTSA
to expand its biomechanics efforts would duplicate these
privately funded efforts.
The Committee is deeply concerned about the number of
children who have been killed by airbags when seated in infant
car seats positioned in the right front seat of an automobile
with an airbag. Because of these fatalities, there is a need to
develop and implement methods to prevent further incidents. As
part of the funding for biomechanics, the Committee directs
NHTSA to provide $200,000 for research on child safety seats
and their interaction with airbags. This 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. Research is
already being conducted in this area, emphasizing an
interdisciplinary approach, by Children's Hospital in
Philadelphia in conjunction with the University of Pennsylvania
School of Engineering.
The Committee strongly supports the highway traffic injury
work being undertaken by the William Lehman Injury Research
Center at Jackson Memorial Hospital and by the New Jersey
College of Medicine. These centers, in consortium with two
other centers, have been working to study motor vehicle crash
injury data and identify patterns of injuries that occur as a
result of specific crashes. Ultimately, this data should help
NHTSA, the automobile manufacturers, and the insurance industry
deploy new safety devices to reduce or prevent these injuries.
Crash avoidance.--The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for
the new crash avoidance initiative, which is $3,000,000 less
than requested. NHTSA planned to conduct research on a variety
of topics, including anti-lock braking systems, vehicle
rollovers, tire performance, and enhanced rear vision. This
work was to be conducted in addition to the crash avoidance
efforts being jointly undertaken with FHWA's Intelligent
Transportation System's Joint Program Office.
The majority of this funding should be used to address
NHTSA's most pressing concern--anti-lock braking systems (ABS).
Recently, some insurance companies removed discounts on
premiums for cars that have ABS because these systems have not
been as effective in avoiding crashes as expected.
Specifically, data has shown that, although ABS is slightly
effective in helping avoid multi-vehicle crashes on wet roads,
crashes into fixed objects, off-road accidents, and rollovers
have increased. NHTSA has begun research to determine if the
reduced effectiveness is caused by people who do not use the
system as directed or if there are generational differences in
older anti-lock braking systems that cause it to work
inefficiently.
NHTSA also planned to conduct dynamic rollover research on
sport utility vehicles. Since these vehicles account for about
40 percent of new vehicle sales, some of the funding should be
used to conduct rollover research and identify modifications to
enhance stability in sport utility vehicles.
National advanced driving simulator (NADS).--The Committee
has not provided any funding for NADS under this program.
Instead, the Committee is fully funding this initiative through
contract authority provided to FHWA's Intelligent
Transportation System's Joint Program Office.
The Committee was pleased to see that other modal
administrations have agreed to help fund the development of the
simulator and plan to use the simulator once it is completed.
NHTSA should continue to work on raising the cost share from
non-DOT sources, such as other federal agencies who plan to use
the simulator once it is developed.
The Committee is concerned about the escalating costs to
develop and build NADS. Since its inception, costs for NADS
have risen by 54 percent. The Committee believes that NHTSA
should have done a better job at controlling some of the non-
inflationary cost increases and directs NHTSA to closely
monitor these costs as the development progresses. In the
future, NHTSA should make every effort to employ cost reduction
options.
The Committee directs the department to reexamine the
business arrangements with the University of Iowa to reduce
participation costs. The Committee does not believe that it is
appropriate that government users be charged the same rates as
other users of the NADS given the Federal Government's sizable
financial contribution (two-thirds of the total) to this
project.
Data analysis program.--The Committee has provided
$1,635,000 for the data analysis program, instead of $2,100,000
as requested. This funding level allows for a 15 percent
increase instead of the 48 percent increase requested.
State data systems.--The Committee has reduced the state
data systems program by $800,000 to a level of $3,050,000. At
this level, NHTSA will still be able to provide grants to at
least six new states to link crash and medical databases. NHTSA
has already funded this type of linkage with seven other
states. Statistical results from these original states showed
that people who do not use their safety belts or motorcycle
helmets and are involved in crashes incur greater medical
expenses than those who use these safety devices. As a result
of this information, Maine implemented a safety belt law as a
means to reduce its medical costs. The Committee believes that
if other states link their crash and medical databases, these
states may move to primary seat belt laws, increase penalties
related to drunk driving, or maintain a lower speed limit. Any
improvements in state laws pay for itself through reduced
medical costs alone.
Partnership for new generation of vehicles (PNGV).-- The
Committee has provided $2,500,000 for PNGV, which is $2,500,000
less than requested. Automobile manufacturers, in conjunction
with the Departments of Commerce, Defense, Energy, and
Interior, are developing technologies for a new generation of
vehicles that may be three times more fuel efficient than
current vehicles. NHTSA's participation in this activity is
important to address critical safety issues; however, this
cannot be done until the most promising technologies that will
go into the PNGV are chosen. However, according to a recent
National Academy of Sciences study, systems analysis for PNGV
has been delayed by 12-18 months. The study also concluded that
the PNGV does not currently have the necessary systems analysis
tools to adequately support technology selection, which is
scheduled for 1997. Because of concerns raised by the National
Academy of Sciences, the Committee has not fully funded NHTSA's
PNGV request. Instead, the Committee has provided sufficient
funds to allow NHTSA to begin acquiring the necessary computer
equipment to develop advanced computer models that evaluate the
crashworthiness of conceptual designs and their safety
compatibility with contemporary vehicles. The Committee
deferred funding for infrastructure analysis because the
department has not made a convincing case for conducting this
work without knowing which technologies will be contained in
the prototype vehicle.
International harmonization.--The Committee has provided
$246,000 for international harmonization instead of $186,000 as
requested. Until recently, vehicle safety standards and
regulations were developed with a domestic focus; however, as
industry has become more regulated and competitive, efforts to
achieve global compatibility of regulations, especially in the
occupant protection field, have become increasingly important.
In November 1995, the United States and the European Union
began an effort to aggregate the research priorities of various
motor vehicle producing regions in an attempt to come to
agreement on a harmonized global research agenda. The United
States has begun similar efforts under the North American Free
Trade Agreement and with the Asian Pacific Economic Forum.
These efforts should reduce duplication of research efforts and
help emerging markets adopt current vehicle safety standards.
In addition, NHTSA's office of international harmonization is
working to reduce or eliminate incompatibilities among various
safety regulations. Because there has been a major increase in
the need for NHTSA to participate in harmonization activities
since the budget proposal was developed, the Committee is
providing additional funding for these activities.
Strategic planning.--Due to budget constraints, the
Committee has funded the strategic planning initiative at
$125,000, which is $200,000 less than requested.
Economic analysis.--The Committee has held funding for
economic analysis at the fiscal year 1996 level of $75,000. Due
to budget constraints, the Committee has not provided funding
to develop a method of quantifying the psycho-social effects of
motor vehicle injuries.
Accountwide adjustment.--The Committee has reduced funding
for training activities by $50,000 and reduced the agency's
non-pay inflationary adjustment by $300,000 so that every
administration within the Department of Transportation has a
1.5 percent non-pay inflationary adjustment. NHTSA had
requested a 3 percent non-pay inflationary adjustment in its
fiscal year 1997 budget request.
-General provision.--The Committee includes a general
provision (sec. 332) that enables the Secretary of
Transportation to administer and implement the exemption
provisions of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings
Act, as requested. These provisions have, for more than 20
years, exempted sellers of large trucks from the odometer
disclosure regulation because vehicles weighing over 16,000
pounds often travel more than 15,000 miles per 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)
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... ($155,100,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997 \1\................... (191,000,000)
Recommended in the bill <SUP>1.......................... (167,100,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... (+12,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... (-23,900,000)
\1\ Includes the Highway-Related Safety Grants program previously funded
under FHWA.
The Committee recommends $167,100,000 to liquidate contract
authorizations for state and community highway safety grants
(23 U.S.C. 402), safety belt and motorcycle helmet use grants
(23 U.S.C. 153), alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures
grants (23 U.S.C. 410), and section 211(b) of the National
Driver Register Act of 1982, as amended, and section 209 of
Public Law 95-599, as amended. The recommendation represents an
increase of $12,000,000 over the 1996 level but $23,900,000
less than requested.
Limitation on Obligations
As in past years and recommended in the budget request, the
bill includes language limiting the obligations to be incurred
under the various highway traffic safety grants programs. The
bill includes separate obligation limitations with the
following funding allocations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Recommended in
1996 enacted 1997 estimate the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 402.................................................. $127,700,000 <SUP>1 $166,200,000 <SUP>1 $138,700,000
Section 410.................................................. 25,000,000 25,000,000 26,000,000
National Driver Register..................................... 3,400,000 2,400,000 2,400,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................... 155,100,000 193,600,000 167,100,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<SUP>1 Merges FHWA's and NHTSA's section 402 formula grant programs.
Section 402 formula grants.--These grants are awarded to
states for the purpose of reducing traffic crashes, fatalities
and injuries. The states may use the grants to implement
programs to reduce deaths and injuries caused by exceeding
posted speed limits; encourage proper use of occupant
protection devices; reduce alcohol-and drug-impaired driving;
reduce crashes between motorcycles and other vehicles; reduce
school bus crashes; improve police traffic services; improve
emergency medical services and trauma care systems; increase
pedestrian and bicyclist safety; and improve traffic record
systems. The grants also provide additional support for state
data collection and reporting of traffic deaths and injuries.
This year, the administration has requested combining
FHWA's section 402 program with NHTSA's section 402 program.
The Committee approves this merger of programs because it
should streamline the grants management process, reduce
administrative expenses, and simplify states' interactions with
the agencies.
An obligation limitation of $138,700,000 is included in the
bill, which is $27,500,000 less than requested. This limitation
includes $127,700,000 for NHTSA's section 402 grant program and
$11,000,000 for FHWA's section 402 grant program. Language is
included in the bill limiting funds available for federal
grants administration to $5,268,000 for NHTSA and $150,000 for
FHWA.
NHTSA has been working to modify and improve the current
highway safety program management system. The agency has
developed a new process for the administration of highway
safety grants which provides the states with more flexibility
and responsibility. A pilot program began in 16 states in
fiscal year 1996. These states did not submit highway safety
plans, but instead developed performance-based systems that
placed an emphasis on results. In fiscal year 1997, 40 states
will be prioritizing how they spend their grant money based on
specific state problems instead of through issues identified in
a highway safety plan. Because this new management process will
give states more freedom to determine the best expenditures of
limited highway safety grant dollars, the Committee has decided
not to earmark scarce federal resources to specific section 402
programs, such as youth or safe communities. The Committee
believes that states can best determine their needs.
Even though the Committee did not earmark funds for
specific section 402 programs, this does not preclude states
from using its grant funding for, among other things, safe
communities, alcohol safety, or youth programs. This lack of
earmarking does not prejudice the safe communities project from
receiving consideration for funding in future appropriations
bills.
The Committee continues to recommend that rail-highway
grade crossing safety issues be considered as an eligible
activity under the states' safe communities programs during
1997. Currently, there are approximately 500 deaths per year
from rail-highway grade crossing accidents. Although Operation
Lifesaver promotes grade crossing education and safety programs
in 49 of the 50 states, some communities may have a high level
of risk and should be encouraged to use section 402 funds to
reduce these tragic deaths and injuries.
The bill continues to carry language that prohibits the use
of funds for construction, rehabilitation, and remodeling
costs, or for office furnishings or fixtures for state, local,
or private buildings or structures.
Section 410 alcohol-impaired countermeasures grants.--
Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures grants are provided to
states that qualify by adopting specified laws and program
measures to reduce safety problems stemming from driving while
impaired by alcohol and other drugs. The program, first enacted
in 1988, was subsequently restructured in 1991 in the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act to expand the
eligibility requirements and increase incentive funds. The
program's eligibility requirements and funding procedures were
further amended in Public Law 102-388. Basic grants are issued
for achieving criteria that include administrative driver's
license revocation actions within stated time frames, lower
blood-alcohol content (BAC) laws, statewide police roadside
checkpoints, effective under age impairment deterrence,
mandatory sentences for repeat offenders, and programs that are
financially self-sufficient. Supplemental grants are provided
to states that adopt additional specified measures, including
0.02 BAC laws for drivers under age 21, license plate
confiscation, laws against open alcohol containers in vehicles,
and mandatory BAC testing by police of suspected DWI offenders.
The bill includes an obligation limitation of $26,000,000
for the section 410 program, an increase of $1,000,000 above
the budget request. In fiscal year 1996, between 30 and 36
states qualified for section 410 grants. In fiscal year 1997,
between 38 and 41 states are expected to qualify. The budget
estimate did not request any additional funding for these new
states. As such, these states will receive only 55 percent of
the maximum allowable grant, a decline of 8 percent from fiscal
year 1996. Because of the importance this Committee places on
reducing drug and alcohol impaired driving habits within states
and local communities, the Committee has provided additional
funding to support the new states, which have recently passed
administrative license revocation laws or lowered blood alcohol
levels, without penalizing states currently participating in
this grant program.
The bill also includes language providing that $500,000 of
section 410 funds be available for technical assistance to the
states, as requested.
National driver register.--The bill includes an obligation
limitation of $2,400,000 for the national driver register
(NDR), the same level as requested. The national driver
register program assists state motor vehicle administrators in
communicating effectively and efficiently with other states to
identify problem drivers (i.e., drivers whose licenses are
suspended or revoked for certain serious traffic offenses,
including vehicle operation under impairment by alcohol and
other drugs).
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION
Summary of Fiscal Year 1997 Program
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is responsible
for planning, developing, and administering programs to achieve
safe operating and mechanical practices in the railroad
industry, as well as managing the high speed ground
transportation program. 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 FRA.
The total recommended program level for the FRA for fiscal
year 1997 is $710,654,000. The following table summarizes the
fiscal year 1996 program levels, the fiscal year 1997 program
requests and the Committee's recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Program 1996 enacted Fiscal year Recommended in
level \1\ 1997 estimate the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the administrator.................................... $14,018,000 $16,883,000 $16,469,000
Railroad safety................................................ 49,919,000 51,864,000 51,407,000
Railroad research and development.............................. 24,550,000 24,565,000 20,341,000
Northeast corridor improvement program......................... 115,000,000 200,000,000 0
High-speed rail trainsets and facilities....................... 0 80,000,000 80,000,000
Next generation high speed rail................................ \2\ 24,205,000 26,525,000 19,757,000
Rhode Island rail development.................................. 1,000,000 10,000,000 4,000,000
Direct loan financing program.................................. 0 0 58,680,000
Direct loan limitation......................................... 0 0 (400,000,000)
Grants to National Railroad Passenger Corporation \3\.......... 635,000,000 638,500,000 462,000,000
Alaska Railroad Rehabilitation................................. 10,000,000 0 0
------------------------------------------------
Total...................................................... 873,692,000 1,048,337,000 712,654,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\..................... $14,018,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 16,883,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 16,469,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... +2,451,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -414,000
\1\ Excludes reductions of $354,000 to comply with working capital fund,
awards, and administrative provisions.
This account provides funds for executive direction and
administration, policy support, passenger and freight services
salaries and expenses, and contractual support. The Committee
recommends an appropriation of $16,469,000 to continue the
Office of the administrator and passenger and freight service
assistance functions. This is an increase of $2,451,000 above
the 1996 enacted level.
The Committee recommends the following changes to the
budget request for this appropriation:
Disallow civil rights ``add back''............................ -$144,000
Reductions in staff........................................... -270,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Net adjustment to budget estimate......................... -414,000
Civil rights.--The Committee has reduced the budget request
by $144,000, which was requested to ``add back'' funding for
civil rights activities. Sufficient funds for civil rights
activities were provided within the amounts appropriated for
fiscal year 1996. The Committee believes that additional
funding is not necessary in fiscal year 1997. In no way shall
this adjustment offset FRA's civil rights activities in fiscal
year 1997.
Reductions in staff.--The Committee recommendation
eliminates five positions in the office of the administrator.
Eleven staff positions have been vacant since 1995. Of these,
five duplicate other positions within the office. It is the
Committee's belief that these positions can be eliminated
without affecting core responsibilities, functions, and duties
of the FRA. These reductions have been made to the following
positions:
Emergency response financial analyst.......................... -$96,000
Two trial attorneys........................................... -74,000
Office of acquisition and grant service contract specialist... -53,000
Administrative service support specialist..................... -47,000
The Committee further directs FRA not to fill these
positions during fiscal year 1996 since funding is not being
made available to continue employment in fiscal year 1997.
Ravenna, Ohio connection.--The Committee directs FRA to
study, in conjunction with Amtrak, the State of Ohio, and
affected freight railroads, the feasibility of constructing a
railway connection in Ravenna, Ohio that would restore Amtrak
service to the cities of Youngstown and Ravenna and provide
service to New Castle, Pennsylvania. Such a connection would
allow for greater flexibility in rail travel between these
metropolitan areas in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Of the total funds
appropriated to this account, not less than $200,000 shall be
used to conduct this feasibility study and should address among
other items, closure or safety enhancements to a highway-rail
grade crossing located at the site. It is the intention of the
Committee that should the $200,000 for the study not be fully
spent, any excess funds could be spent on an environmental
assessment of the Ravenna connection, provided that state and/
or local funds have also been pledged.
Railroad Safety
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\..................... $49,919,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 51,864,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 51,407,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... +1,488,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -457,000
\1\ Excludes reductions 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.
The federal role in the railroad safety program is to
protect railroad employees and the public by ensuring the safe
operation of passenger and freight trains. The authority to
accomplish this role is found in the Federal Railroad Safety
Act of 1970 (as amended), the Department of Transportation Act,
and the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. Greatly
expanded railroad safety authority was granted the FRA under
the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 1988.
The Committee recommends a total appropriation of
$51,407,000 for railroad safety programs in fiscal year 1997.
This is an increase of $1,488,000 above the level provided in
fiscal year 1996 and a reduction of $457,000 below the level
proposed in the budget estimate.
Recommended adjustments to the budget estimate are as
follows:
Provide a 10 percent increase for communications,
utilities, and miscellaneous........................ -$107,000
Reduce costs associated with new rail advisory committee -150,000
Hold printing and reproduction costs to 10 percent
increase instead of a 26 percent increase........... -15,000
Hold other services to 5 percent increase............... -185,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Net adjustment to budget.......................... -457,000
Communications, utilities, and miscellaneous.--The
Committee recommends $798,000 for communications, utilities,
and miscellaneous expenses. FRA had requested a 25 percent
increase in this program; however, due to budget constraints,
the Committee has provided only 10 percent. Part of this
funding was to be used to procure pagers for inspectors. The
Committee suggests that this cost could be deferred.
Railroad advisory committee.--The Committee recommends
$50,000 for the railroad advisory committee instead of the
$200,000 requested. When other advisory committees are
established within the department, they have not required such
a significant level of funding. Therefore, the Committee has
reduced funding for this new initiative to be comparable to
other advisory committees. In addition, given the ceiling in
the bill on funding for advisory committees, it is unlikely
this committee would achieve such a high level of support.
Printing and reproduction.--The Committee has provided
$102,000 for printing and reproduction, which is a 10 percent
increase over last year's enacted level, instead of the 26
percent increase requested.
Other services.--Due to budgetary constraints, the
Committee has reduced the budget request of $4,823,000 for
other services by $185,000. This is 5 percent above the fiscal
year 1996 level.
bill language
The Committee has included language that will allow FRA to
reimburse states employees' travel and per diem costs when
directly supporting federal railroad safety programs, such as
regulatory development and compliance-related activities.
States are playing an increasingly important role in a variety
of safety activities. In the past, funds have been appropriated
for reimbursement of travel and per diem costs incurred by
state employees attending federal training sessions. This
language would broaden eligible reimbursement activities so
that states could work with FRA in drafting, interpreting, and
applying safety standards and participate in regulatory
developments as they apply to high speed rail.
Railroad Research and Development
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\..................... $24,550,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 24,565,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 20,341,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... -4,209,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -4,224,000
\1\ Excludes reductions of $435,000 to comply with working capital fund
and administrative provisions and $34,000 to comply with the Omnibus
Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.
The railroad research and development appropriation
finances contract research activities as well as salaries and
expenses necessary for supervisory, management, and
administrative functions. The objectives of this program are to
reduce the frequency and severity of railroad accidents and to
provide technical support for rail safety rulemaking and
enforcement activities.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $20,341,000
for fiscal year 1997, which represents a $4,224,000 decrease
below the budget estimate. Recommended adjustments to the
budget estimate are as follows:
Reductions in new program initiatives due to fiscal
constraints......................................... -$2,725,000
Delete funding for maglev initiative.................... -1,000,000
Hold environmental program to 1996 level................ -400,000
Hold administration to 1996 level....................... -59,000
Decrease funding due to unobligated balances............ -640,000
Increase funding for Operation Lifesaver................ +600,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Net adjustment to budget estimate................... -4,224,000
New program initiatives.--The Committee has reduced the
budget request of $7,116,000 for new research and development
program initiatives by $2,725,000. None of this reduction
should be applied to ongoing safety-related research and
development activities.
Each year, FRA begins or expands a variety of research and
development activities, which are not continued in the
following year. In addition, in this year's budget request,
there are new initiatives that are duplicative of ongoing
industry efforts, such as those related to the ergonomics of
advanced train control. In a tight budgetary environment, the
Committee cannot afford to stop and start research activities
or duplicate industry efforts. To prevent future occurrences
like this, FRA should develop and share with the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations a five-year plan for its
railroad research and development activities that highlights
its long-term initiatives and explains how they differ from
industry activities. This plan should be submitted not later
than April 1, 1997.
Enabling technologies for maglev.--The Committee has
deleted funding for the new maglev initiative (-$1,000,000).
This initiative sought to combine Air Force, Navy, and NASA
technology to develop a high speed booster for satellites and
the space shuttle using magnetic levitation. Due to the
uncertain prospects for commercialization of maglev technology
and the unclear transportation-related purpose of this planned
activity, the Committee has deleted funding for this program.
Environmental program.--The Committee has provided $200,000
for environmental issues, which is the same amount as provided
in 1996. This is $400,000 less than requested. The request did
not adequately justify why such a large increase was necessary
in this program.
Administration.--The Committee has provided $2,130,000 for
administration. FRA is reducing its number of full-time
employees within its research and development program, and as
such, the Committee is reducing the request by $59,000.
Unobligated balances.--FRA has $1,400,000 in unobligated
balances currently in this program due to pending contract
delays and changing technical requirements. About half of this
funding is programmed for environmental cleanup; however, FRA
could not adequately explain when or for what purpose the
remaining funds would be used. The Committee has reduced the
railroad research and development program by $640,000 to take
into account these unobligated balances.
Operation Lifesaver.--The United States has over 168,000
public highway-rail intersections. About 60 percent have only
passive warning devices. Because most intersections do not
depend on train activated warning devices, the potential for
tragedies is significant. Every year, approximately 500 people
are killed in highway-rail grade crossing accidents. These
accidents are considered the most significant safety issue for
both the passenger rail and freight industry.
The Committee has provided $900,000 for Operation
Lifesaver, which is $600,000 more than requested. Operation
Lifesaver has been very successful in working with states and
communities to better educate people about the risks at
highway-rail grade crossings and actively working to reduce
these needless fatalities. The Committee believes that this
increase in funding is imperative for the Department of
Transportation in conjunction with Operation Lifesaver, to
achieve a 50 percent reduction in railroad crossing accidents
and fatalities by the year 2004. Of this additional funding,
$500,000 should be provided to Operation Lifesaver's current
state assistance grant program, which works directly with
states to reduce grade crossing fatalities and prevent
trespassing. The remaining funds should be used to help
distribute some of Operation Lifesaver's most powerful public
service messages, such as ``Highways and Dieways'', to the top
ten highway-rail grade crossing accident states and update
federal education efforts. In addition, FRA should consider
allowing Operation Lifesaver discretion on how to spend its
available funds so that it can better respond to time-sensitive
situations or when designated funds are no longer needed for a
specific project.
Northeast Corridor Improvement Program
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\..................... $115,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 200,000,000
Recommended in the bill.................................................
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... -115,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -200,000,000
\1\ Excludes reduction of $6,000 to comply with the Omnibus Consolidated
Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.
Title VII of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory
Reform Act of 1976 (4R Act) authorized $2,500,000,000 for the
Northeast Corridor Improvement Program. That Act was later
amended to add a list of projects to be funded in the event the
total amount of authorized funding became available. This
project list was again amended in the Rail Safety Improvement
Act of 1988 to authorize new safety-related projects which the
Committee initiated in the aftermath of the Chase, Maryland,
Conrail-Amtrak accident. Currently, the program includes a
major upgrade of the north end of the corridor to improve
running speeds between New York City and Boston, including
electrification of the rail line between New Haven, Connecticut
and Boston. The program also includes routine upgrade and
rehabilitation of the south end of the corridor between
Washington, D.C. and New York City.
The Committee recommends no funding for the Northeast
Corridor Improvement Program in fiscal year 1997 because of a
large backlog of existing funds at Amtrak for this program.
However, this does not prejudice the project from receiving
consideration for funding in future appropriations bills.
Congress has appropriated $753,000,000 for the Northeast
Corridor Improvement Program, of which Amtrak still has not
expended $466,000,000. These funds can be used to fund
improvements to the corridor, including electrification, track
and related infrastructure, trainsets, facilities, and
environmental mitigation during fiscal year 1997.
Last year, Amtrak stated that it had $405,900,000 remaining
from its federal appropriations that could be used for the
Northeast Corridor Improvement Program. At that time, Congress
greatly reduced funding for this program because of these high
balances. Since then, Amtrak has not been able to spend down
these balances because Amtrak had to terminate its original
electrification design contract and experienced additional
slippage in both the electrification and high speed rail
procurements. In addition, as partial settlement in termination
of the original electrification design contract, the prime
contractor paid Amtrak approximately $88,000,000. For these
reasons, over the past year, the balances have continued to
grow.
The Committee has sought, under difficult budgetary
pressures this year, to provide enough funding for Amtrak to
continue to operate a national passenger rail system without
major disruptions and to provide capital funds which are
essential to Amtrak's long-term viability. The Committee
recognizes the critical importance of completing the work
between New York and Boston to achieving the goal of
eliminating Amtrak's federal operating subsidies by the year
2002. The Committee believes that goal cannot be achieved
without the procurement of the new high-speed trainsets and
facilities. However, the Committee can not agree to fund
electrification, high speed trainsets, and routine expenses in
the corridor while such high balances remain. After reviewing
Amtrak's projected spending for the Corridor through the end of
fiscal year 1997, the Committee believes that Amtrak can manage
its cash flow needs with previously appropriated funds. The
Committee imposes no restrictions on Amtrak's ability to use
its capital funding for northeast corridor expenses, if they
are of sufficient priority.
Recapitalization on the southern end of the corridor.--
Amtrak is in the process of recapitalizing the southern end of
the corridor in order to maintain operations at 125 miles per
hour. Currently, this is estimated to cost over $3 billion. The
Committee recognizes Amtrak's responsibility as owner of the
northeast corridor for maintaining the safe and reliable
condition of the rail line. However, Amtrak operates just nine
percent of the trains between New York and Washington, D.C.
Applying the ``user pays'' principle, which is so much a part
of transportation financing in this country, the Committee
believes it is essential that commuter authorities, which
operate the majority of the trains, increase their financial
contribution for recapitalizing the rail line. The Committee
encourages Amtrak to develop joint funding agreements with the
individual commuter authorities and report on the status of
these efforts to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees
by February 1, 1997.
High-speed track and equipment standards.--Operation of
trains over 110 miles per hour requires specific waivers from
FRA. The Committee is concerned that FRA has not yet developed
track or equipment standards for high speed rail. The
uncertainty regarding these standards has added risk to the
trainset procurement and complicates the efforts of Amtrak and
other potential high speed operators to upgrade track and
signal systems for faster operations. The Committee believes
that FRA should work with Amtrak, the railroad industry, and
research specialists to develop generic high speed equipment
and track standards or rules of particular applicability where
warranted. FRA should report to the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees by March 1, 1997 on the status of its
efforts in this area and its schedule for promulgating these
standards.
High-Speed Rail Trainsets and Facilities
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.........................................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... $80,000,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 80,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... +80,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................................
The Committee is fully funding the request for high-speed
rail trainsets and facilities. On March 15, 1996, Amtrak
awarded a competitive, multi-year contract to launch high speed
rail service on the northeast corridor by late 1999. These
trainsets are designed to offer enhanced high-speed service of
up to 150 miles per hour on the northeast corridor between
Washington, D.C. and Boston, Massachusetts. As part of this
award, the federal government has been asked to provide funding
for high speed rail maintenance facilities because private
financing is uncertain at this time. Amtrak has told the
Committee that without funding for the maintenance facilities,
the entire procurement of high-speed rail trainsets would be in
jeopardy. Fully funding this request will assure the high speed
rail vendor that the Committee strongly supports the high speed
rail project and that the facilities to maintain the trainsets
will be available when they are delivered. The Committee
expects that this funding will be a one-time cost and does not
plan on providing additional funding to construct these
facilities in future years.
Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Program
Section 511 of Public Law 94-210, as amended authorizes
obligation guarantees for meeting the long-term capital needs
of private railroads. Railroads utilize this funding mechanism
to finance major new facilities and rehabilitation or
consolidation of current facilities. No appropriations or new
loan guarantee commitments are proposed in fiscal year 1997
consistent with the budget request.
Next Generation High-Speed Rail
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 <SUP>1 2................ $24,205,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 26,525,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 19,757,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... -4,448,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -6,768,000
\1\ Excludes reductions of $54,000 to comply with working capital fund
and administrative provisions, and $24,000 to comply with the Omnibus
Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.
\2\ Includes $5,000,000 made available from the highway trust fund.
The next generation high-speed rail program funds the
development, demonstration, and implementation of high-speed
rail technologies. It is managed in conjunction with the
program authorized in the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 for similar purposes.
The Committee recommends $19,757,000 from the general fund
for this program, which is $6,768,000 less than requested.
Adjustments in total program funding from the budget estimate
are as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
---------------------------------- Committee
1996 enacted 1997 request recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Positive train control....................................... $9,000,000 \2\ $6,579,000 \2\ $6,079,000
Non-electric locomotive...................................... 9,000,000 9,000,000 7,000,000
Grade crossing and innovative technologies................... 4,500,000 6,000,000 5,000,000
Track and structure technologies............................. ............... 3,000,000 ...............
Planning technology.......................................... 1,250,000 1,518,000 1,250,000
Administration............................................... 455,000 428,000 428,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. \1\ 24,205,000 26,525,000 19,757,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $5,000,000 made available from the highway trust fund.
\2\ Excludes $1,421,000 in contract authority remaining in the trust fund not subject to limitation.
Advanced train control.--The Committee has provided
$6,079,000 for advanced train control, which is $500,000 less
than requested. This reduction is appropriate because of delays
in testing advanced train control devices in the Pacific
Northwest. The Committee is also aware of a railroad merger
that may have the potential to affect how advanced train
control devices are tested in the Midwest.
Non-electric locomotive.--The Committee has reduced funding
for the non-electric locomotive initiative by $2,000,000. None
of this reduction should be applied to the Transportation Test
Center or the advanced locomotive propulsion project. Instead,
the reduction should be applied to FRA's program to upgrade
turbine locomotives within the State of New York. The Committee
believes that, at this reduced level, there is ample funding to
continue the development of high speed diesel or turbine
locomotives, which could be used on other high speed rail
corridors currently under consideration. However, FRA should
not be funding the retrofit of twenty year old railcars or
locomotives, which are no longer manufactured within the United
States, and thus, cannot be procured for use on other corridors
seeking to develop high speed rail. The development of rolling
stock that railroads might acquire is a more appropriate role
for private industry.
Grade crossing and innovative technologies.--The Committee
has provided $5,000,000 for grade crossing and innovative
technologies, which is $500,000 more than enacted in fiscal
year 1996. Reductions were made to the request for three
reasons. First, this program is experiencing delays in its
contract awards, leaving unobligated balances available for use
in fiscal year 1997. Second, other portions of the Department
of Transportation's budget fund a number of these efforts. For
example, some of these technologies are receiving funding
through the FHWA's section 130 program. Third, FRA has not
adequately justified its increase in low-cost innovative
technologies.
Other reductions.--Due to budget constraints, the Committee
has deferred funding for FRA's new track and structures
initiative (-$3,000,000) and has held planning technology to
the 1996 enacted level (-$268,000).
Trust Fund Share of Next Generation High-Speed Rail
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(highway trust fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... ($7,118,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... (2,855,000)
Recommended in the bill................................. (2,855,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation fiscal year 1996...................... (-4,233,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................................
Section 1036 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 establishes a program of research,
development, and demonstrations of high-speed ground
transportation technologies, and provides $5,000,000 in
contract authorization for each of fiscal years 1993 through
1997. The budget proposed bill language which has the effect of
creating a new high-speed ground transportation program
financed by both the general fund and the highway trust fund.
The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation
of $2,855,000 for the high-speed ground transportation program
in fiscal year 1997. This is $4,233,000 less than enacted in
fiscal year 1996.
Rhode Island Rail Development
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... $1,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 10,000,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 4,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... +3,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -6,000,000
The Committee is providing $4,000,000 for the Rhode Island
rail development project, which is $3,000,000 above the 1996
enacted level.
Language in the 1995 and 1996 Department of Transportation
Appropriations Acts require that the project have state
matching funds. However, the state has had difficulty in
matching federal appropriations. To date, the state has only
obligated $800,000 of the $6,000,000 appropriated in fiscal
years 1995 and 1996. Also, the state has experienced a one-year
delay in issuing bonds to fund its portion of the project. Last
year, Rhode Island expected to seek a bond to fund this project
in the fall of 1995. This has now slipped until November 1996.
The Committee is uncertain that matching funds will be
available unless the bond issue is approved.
In the interim, the National Highway System Designation Act
allows the State of Rhode Island to commit all or some of its
$5,800,000 Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) yearly
apportionment for freight rail improvements in fiscal years
1996 and 1997. The State plans to do so once the final
environmental impact statement and record of decision are
complete. The Committee believes that this funding should be
sufficient for work planned in fiscal year 1997, especially if
the bond referendum is approved.
The Committee is concerned about a variety of safety issues
surrounding this project. Specifically, Rhode Island is
considering a partial build of the rail line. The partial build
would lay four sidings to shift double stacked freight cars
away from Amtrak operations; however, freight trains would not
operate solely on dedicated sidings but instead would move on
and off the northeast corridor. The operation of high-speed
passenger trains and slower, freight trains on the same tracks
presents the potential for accidents. Although freight trains
operate in the same rights of way with Amtrak throughout the
country, on the northeast corridor passenger trains are
operating at twice the speed of freight. Following the tragic
accident at Chase, Maryland, Amtrak imposed a number of
restrictions on freight operations along the northeast
corridor. One, in particular, was a prohibition on the
operation of double stack freight cars on the main line. This
prohibition remains in effect today; however, these are the
type of railcars that Rhode Island proposes to operate along a
portion of the corridor. The Committee believes this safety
issue must be addressed by the FRA as part of its review of the
final environmental impact statement and issuance of a record
of decision.
Direct Loan Financing Program
Loan subsidy Limitation on
appropriation direct loans
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..... ................ ................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997... ................ ................
Recommended in the bill............. $58,680,000 ($400,000,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996. +58,680,000 (+400,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year
1997........................... +58,680,000 (+400,000,000)
The Committee recommends $58,680,000 for direct loans not
to exceed $400,000,000 consistent with the purposes of section
505 of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of
1976 to the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority to
continue the Alameda Corridor project. The administration
requested funding for this project within the Federal Highway
Administration. The bill also specifies terms and conditions of
the loan payback and loan administration.
The Alameda Corridor project consolidates 90 miles of rail
operations into a single 20-mile facility to provide rail
access to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The project
is to eliminate 200 at-grade crossings and widen Alameda
Street, which runs parallel to the rail corridor.
Disbursements of the loan shall be made over a three year
period. Both in fiscal years 1997 and 1998, no more than
$140,000,000 shall be made available. In fiscal year 1999,
$120,000,000 shall be made available for the project. These
disbursements are consistent with the corridor's planned
construction schedule.
Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.........................\1\ $635,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... \2\ 638,500,000
Recommended in the bill................................. \2\ 462,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... -173,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -176,500,000
\1\ Includes $120,000,000 for mandatory payments.
\2\ Includes $142,000,000 for mandatory payments.
The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is a
private/public corporation created by the Rail Passenger
Service Act of 1970 and incorporated under the laws of the
District of Columbia to operate a national rail passenger
system. Amtrak started operation on May 1, 1971.
The Committee recommends a total funding level of
$462,000,000 for grants to Amtrak to cover operating losses and
capital expenses in fiscal year 1997. The total funding
recommended in the bill compares to $635,000,000 for comparable
expenses in fiscal year 1996.
status of amtrak
Amtrak continues to face serious economic and financial
challenges. Significant progress was made during fiscal year
1995 to improve Amtrak's bottom line. During that year, Amtrak
radically restructured its management process by decentralizing
to three strategic business units, eliminated or reduced the
frequency of a number of routes, and undertook a number of cost
containment strategies. These efforts allowed Amtrak to end
fiscal year 1995 with a cash surplus.
The Committee commends the actions taken by Amtrak and most
notably its President in its restructuring efforts. However, in
fiscal year 1996, Amtrak continues to face the same economic
and financial challenges, and the corporation has not been able
to make significant progress in improving its bottom line.
Anticipated legislative reforms, such as contracting out and
labor reforms, have not occurred. Without these reforms, Amtrak
may not be able to reduce its operating expenses sufficiently
to become independent of federal operating subsidies by the
year 2002. In addition, Amtrak incurred over $10,000,000 in
unexpected costs during the blizzard of 1996 because Amtrak
personnel worked around the clock to clear tracks and rights of
way, clear switches, maintain signals, and perform electronic
surveillance of the catenary system. Many of these actions went
beyond Amtrak's normal procedures, and were done to provide the
traveling public with, in many cases, the only mode of
transportation operating in severe weather conditions. Finally,
as a result of corporate restructuring and route and service
adjustments Amtrak made in fiscal year 1995, the corporation
has just emerged from a very expensive and disruptive period.
Continuing to keep Amtrak operating with a positive cash flow
may not be possible during fiscal year 1996. In fact, the
latest monthly financial performance report notes that Amtrak
may end the fiscal year with a negative cash flow of
$55,800,000.
On the positive side, in March, 1996, Amtrak signed a
multi-year contract to procure 18 high speed trainsets for use
along the Northeast Corridor. Once these trainsets are
operating, Amtrak estimates that it will have 3,000,000
additional riders per year between Washington, D.C. and Boston,
Massachusetts. Amtrak believes that these riders will help the
corporation achieve a net positive cash balance of $150,000,000
per year. This will greatly enhance Amtrak's ability to operate
without federal subsidies in the long-term.
operating expenses
The Committee's recommendation provides $342,000,000 for
Amtrak's operating losses in fiscal year 1997, as requested by
the administration. This is a reduction of $63,000,000 from the
1996 enacted level. The budget resolution calls for a phase-out
of federal operating assistance to Amtrak by the year 2002.
The Committee has fully funded the administration's request
of $200,000,000 for routine operating expenses. Last year, as
part of Amtrak's operating expenses, the Committee provided
$100,000,000 for long-term restructuring and transition costs.
In fiscal year 1997, the budget did not request funding for
long-term transition expenses.
Also, the Committee has provided $142,000,000 for mandatory
passenger rail service payments. This is the same amount as
included in the budget estimate. These payments are made by
Amtrak to the railroad retirement fund and the railroad
unemployment insurance account. Should the requirement for
these funds be less than anticipated, as has occurred in the
past, Amtrak has the flexibility to use those funds for other
purposes, rather than await further Congressional action.
capital expenses
The Committee's recommendation provides $120,000,000 for
Amtrak's capital program in fiscal year 1997. This is
$110,000,000 less than enacted in 1996 and $176,500,000 less
than the budget estimate. The reduction is due to severe budget
constraints facing the Committee. In addition, $80,000,000 is
provided for high speed trainset maintenance facilities under a
separate account, which is also a capital investment.
Consistent with the budget estimate and actions taken in fiscal
year 1996, the availability of funds is delayed until July 1,
1997. This funding will allow Amtrak to cover its debt service
costs.
Pennsylvania Station redevelopment.--No capital funding has
been provided for the Pennsylvania Station redevelopment
project, consistent with Amtrak's grant request. A recent DOT
Inspector General report noted that:
The Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Corporation,
which was formed in 1995 to manage the project, is
obtaining a revised estimate of the cost of the
project, which will include requirements not reflected
in the original $315,000,000 estimate. * * * Some
examples of items not included are the street level
entrances to the Farley Building, widening of the 33rd
Street connector to 36 feet, and boarding zones in
Amtrak's concourse at the Farley Building. * * * The
revised estimate is expected to significantly exceed
the original estimate and could adversely impact
federal, state, and city funding commitments, as well
as private investors.
In view of the unresolved project costs and in a time of
declining federal resources, the Committee will not provide
additional funding for the Pennsylvania Station redevelopment
project until the cost estimates are revised, a new schedule is
developed, and written, binding commitments are secured from
all funding sources. If the cost estimates are significantly
above the original estimate, Amtrak, in conjunction with FRA,
and the city and state of New York should prepare a financial
plan identifying funding resources for the project and any
viable alternatives.
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
Summary of Fiscal Year 1997 Program
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) was established as
a component of the Department of Transportation on July 1,
1968, when most of the functions and programs under the Federal
Transit Act (78 Stat. 302; 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), were
transferred from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development. Known as the Urban Mass Transit Administration
until enactment of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991, the Federal Transit Administration
administers the federal financial assistance programs for
planning, developing and improving comprehensive mass
transportation systems in both urban and non-urban areas.
Much of the funding for the Federal Transit Administration
is provided by contract authority, with program levels
established by annual limitations on obligations provided in
appropriations Acts. However, direct appropriations are
required for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
as well as for portions of certain other accounts.
The total recommended for FTA for fiscal year 1997 is
$4,050,792,000, including $732,867,000 in direct appropriations
and $3,317,925,000 in limitations on the use of contract
authority. The total recommended is $633,000 below the fiscal
year 1996 program level, due entirely to reductions in
administrative activities.
The following table summarizes the fiscal year 1996 program
levels, the fiscal year 1997 program requests, and the
Committee's recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended in
Program 1996 enacted\1\ 1997 estimate the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses................................ $42,000,000 $43,652,000 $41,367,000
Formula grants \2\..................................... 2,052,925,000 2,151,972,000 2,052,925,000
Discretionary grants \3\............................... 1,665,000,000 1,799,000,000 1,665,000,000
Transit planning and research.......................... 85,500,000 85,500,000 85,500,000
University transportation centers...................... 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000
Washington Metro....................................... 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 $1,652,925,000 in Committee recommendation.
\3\ Limitation on obligations.
Administrative Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\..................... $42,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 43,652,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 41,367,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... -633,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -2,285,000
\1\ Excludes reductions of $1,278,000 to comply with working capital
fund, awards, and administrative provisions.
The bill includes a total of $41,367,000 for administrative
expenses of the Federal Transit Administration, a decrease of
$633,000 from the 1996 enacted level. This amount should
provide sufficient funds for FTA's personnel and support
requirements. The recommendation should fund 512 full time
equivalent staff years, including two additional community
planners and two general engineers in the regional offices. The
recommendation includes the following adjustments to the budget
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
request:
Disallow civil rights add-back.......................... -$725,000
Reduce amounts available for organizational training.... -500,000
Allow 2 regional community planners instead of 4........ -130,000
Eliminate director of the office of communications and
external affairs and executive assistant positions.. -150,000
Undistributed reductions that can be offset by the use
of unrestricted authorities......................... -780,000
Disallow civil rights add-back.--The Committee has not
restored additional funds requested for civil rights activities
(-$725,000). Sufficient funds were provided in FTA's operating
budget for fiscal year 1996 and are included within the amounts
provided for fiscal year 1997. In no way shall this adjustment
affect the FTA's ongoing civil rights activities in fiscal year
1997.
Organizational training.--The Committee has learned that
the FTA contracted for a training program entitled ``Meeting
the Challenge of Change.'' The Committee questions the nature
and benefit of this training course, which appears likely to
generate fear and encourage conflict. The course description
states that ``perhaps the greatest resistance [to the course]
is a fear of having project team leaders ask probing
questions'' and ``because the problems are actual and because
people disagree about them, conflicts can occur.'' Last year,
the Committee learned of other similar non-technical training
within the department and sought to eliminate such training
from the department by including bill language (which is again
included in this bill) that prohibited training which, among
other items, was likely to induce high levels of psychological
stress or attempted to change the participants' personal values
or lifestyle outside the workplace. The Committee believes the
``Challenge of change'' training may violate the letter or
intent of this provision, and should not be continued within
the FTA. Accordingly, the Committee has reduced funding for
organizational training by $500,000. The Committee believes
that sufficient funds are included within the amounts
appropriated to provide adequate technical training to FTA
staff.
Office of communications and external affairs.--The
Committee has learned that over the past year the office of the
administrator lost two employees, the director of
communications and external affairs and an executive assistant,
and that these positions are currently vacant. In light of
severe budget constraints and government downsizing, it is the
Committee's belief that the functions and responsibilities of
this office are unnecessary at this time and can be
accommodated within the office of public affairs. The Committee
has deleted these two positions in fiscal year 1997 and directs
the administrator not to fill these positions in fiscal year
1996.
Unrestricted authorities.--An account entitled
``unrestricted cash'' was created prior to 1972 when funds were
appropriated in a lump-sum, single appropriation to the ``urban
mass transportation fund.'' Balances in this fund are the
result of credits from deobligating old projects that have been
closed out, and currently total nearly $780,000. The Committee
has learned that this account has been used by FTA to fund
administrative costs of the agency, principally to pay for
activities reduced or denied by Congress. Accordingly, the
Committee has taken an undistributed reduction in the salaries
and expenses account and directs the FTA to deplete all
remaining balances in the unrestricted cash account.
Information technologies.--The recommended level fully
funds the department's request for information technology
activities, and includes sufficient funds to continue the
development and implementation of the electronic grant making
and management system.
WMATA oversight.--The Committee has continued a general
provision (sec. 329) that requires FTA oversight of Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) be conducted from
FTA's Washington metropolitan offices. The FTA has considered
transferring the oversight of WMATA to the regional office in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. With such a transfer, all
significant decisions would inevitably be referred to FTA
headquarters. This appears to make little sense since WMATA is
located in the nation's capital and literally a few blocks from
the Department of Transportation's Washington headquarters. The
FTA shall continue to allocate two full-time equivalent staff
positions in the FTA's Washington, DC offices to conduct
management and oversight of WMATA. To ensure high-quality,
professional oversight, the Committee directs that the
individuals assigned to conduct such oversight have
significant, long-term institutional knowledge of WMATA and its
operations.
3(j) report.--The Committee is disturbed that the annual
3(j) report has not been transmitted to Congress in a timely
manner this year. In fact, at the time of this writing, the
final report for 1996 has yet to be transmitted to Congress.
The 3(j) report, or the ``Report on Funding Levels and
Allocations of Funds,'' is to provide the Department of
Transportation's recommendations to Congress for allocation of
funds to be made available under 49 U.S.C. 5309 (formerly
Section 3 of the Federal Transit Act) for construction of new
fixed guideway systems and extensions for fiscal year 1997.
This report is required by 49 U.S.C. 5309(m)(3). This annual
report provides critical information in support of the budget
recommendations. Without the timely transmittal of this report,
Congress is unable to fully consider the judgment of the FTA
regarding the allocation of section 3 new start funds. The
Federal Transit Administration is directed to submit the 1997
3(j) report to Congress not later than April 1, 1997. Should
this report be significantly late next year, the Committee may
have to consider taking stronger action.
Formula Grants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation Limitation
(General Fund) (Trust Fund)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..... $942,925,000 ($1,110,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997... 221,122,000 (1,930,850,000)
Recommended in the bill............. 400,000,000 (1,652,925,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996. -542,925,000 (+542,925,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year
1997............................... +178,878,000 (-277,925,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends $2,052,925,000 for formula grants.
This is the same level provided in fiscal year 1996 and
$99,047,000 below the budget estimate. Formula grant funds are
available for capital and operating assistance to both
urbanized and non-urbanized areas, and for capital assistance
to organizations providing service to elderly and disabled
persons.
Transit operating assistance.--Numerous transit authorities
and Members of Congress communicated to the Committee the hope
that transit operating subsidies could be increased to
$500,000,000, as requested in the budget estimate.
Unfortunately, budgetary limitations preclude the Committee
from providing this level of funding. The Committee has,
however, been able to hold transit operating assistance to the
level of $400,000,000 appropriated in fiscal year 1996. In
addition, the Committee has included bill language that would
provide transit operating assistance to urbanized areas of less
than 200,000 in population no less than seventy-five percent of
the amount of operating assistance such areas were eligible to
receive under Public Law 103-331. This ``hold-harmless''
provision was included in the Department of Transportation and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996. Further, the
Committee has continued bill language that, in the distribution
of the limitation on operating assistance to urbanized areas
that had a population under the 1990 decennial census of
1,000,000 or more, instructs the Secretary to direct each area
to give priority consideration to the impact of reductions in
operating assistance on smaller transit authorities operating
within the area, and to consider the needs and resources of
such transit authorities when the limitation is distributed
among all transit authorities operating in that area. This
provision, too, was carried in the Department of Transportation
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 1996.
The Committee recognizes that many transit operators
throughout the country have responded to federal transit
operating assistance reductions by reducing their overhead
costs, streamlining their operations, raising fares, and
adjusting state and local support for transit operations. Faced
with reductions in federal operating assistance, transit
providers have put in place business-like controls. The
Committee is concerned, however, that any further, immediate
reductions in transit operating assistance could be detrimental
to transit providers and the communities that they serve. Many
transit agencies are still determining how to respond to last
year's reductions and sufficient time is necessary to modify
service or secure additional revenue, either from fare
increases or state, local or other sources. The Committee
encourages the FTA to work with transit providers and their
associations to identify ways to reduce their dependency on
federal transit operating assistance, as federal fiscal
limitations may necessitate further reductions in transit
operating assistance in the future.
Bus overhauls.--The Department of Transportation and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 amended 49 U.S.C.
5302(a)(1) (B) and (C) to remove the requirement that bus
rehabilitation or bus manufacturing must extend the economic
life of the bus, thereby making bus overhauls eligible for
capital assistance, effective March 31, 1996. The intent of
this provision was to provide transit operators with increased
flexibility to use federal funds in the most effective manner,
remove the bias towards purchasing new equipment rather than
maintaining existing equipment (much of which was acquired with
federal funds), and make federal highway and transit funding
requirements more consistent. This change has helped to
ameliorate the impact of federal operating assistance
reductions enacted last year. The Committee expects that this
change in permanent law will continue to provide bus operators
with greater flexibility in how they manage and maintain
federally-funded assets since fiscal year 1997 will be the
first full year in which bus overhauls are eligible for capital
assistance. The Committee and the administration estimate that
this change in permanent law could make eligible for capital
grants as much as $200,000,000 a year in rebuilding costs.
The Committee encourages the FTA to explore further changes
in the definitions of capital eligibility to make eligible more
maintenance costs and to place FTA's programs more in line with
the highway program under which all preventive maintenance is
eligible as a capital expense. These recommendations should be
included as part of the department's Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act reauthorization proposals.
Flexibility funding provisions.--Capital costs for transit
projects eligible for assistance under the Federal Transit Act
and publicly owned intracity or intercity bus terminals and
facilities are eligible expenses under the surface
transportation program (STP). Public transportation facilities
and equipment and intermodal transportation facilities and
systems, where it can be demonstrated they are likely to
contribute to the attainment of a national ambient air quality
standard, are eligible expenses for the congestion mitigation
and air quality improvement program (CMAQ). Funds made
available for these programs may be ``flexed.'' The Committee
has included $5,421,254,000 for STP and $861,078,000 for CMAQ
under the highway obligation limitation.
Flexible funds transferred from the FHWA to the FTA have
increased significantly since the passage of the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), especially from
the STP and CMAQ programs. The FTA reports that $2.1 billion in
flexible funding from STP and CMAQ programs has been
transferred to transit and intermodal projects since ISTEA's
passage, indicating that transit systems, metropolitan planning
organizations, and state departments are successfully using the
flexibility provided to them in ISTEA.
FLEXIBLE FUNDING TRANSFERS TO FTA/FHWA AND OBLIGATIONS
[As of April 30, 1996, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------------------------ Cumulative
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FHWA transfers to FTA:
CMAQ............................................ $177.0 $298.4 $317.0 $484.1 $200.4 $1,476.9
STP............................................. 25.2 146.9 183.2 200.3 110.9 666.5
Interstate substitute........................... 100.0 0.1 83.3 83.3 0 266.7
FHWA earmarks/FAUS.............................. 1.6 23.8 26.2 34.1 13.9 99.6
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total transfers to FTA........................ 303.8 469.2 609.7 801.8 325.2 2,509.7
===========================================================
Carryover from previous year (including recoveries/
adjustments):
CMAQ............................................ n/a 55.8 65.8 98.2 87.6 ..........
STP............................................. n/a 4.4 25.3 113.6 31.2 ..........
Interstate substitute........................... n/a 0 0 0 0 ..........
FHWA earmarks/FAUS.............................. n/a 0 9.9 20.2 4.8 ..........
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total carryover............................... n/a 60.2 101.0 232.0 123.6 * ..........
===========================================================
Available to FTA:
CMAQ............................................ 177.0 354.2 382.8 582.3 288.0 ..........
STP............................................. 25.2 151.3 208.5 313.9 142.1 ..........
Interstate substitute........................... 100.0 0.1 83.3 83.3 0 ..........
FHWA earmarks/FAUS.............................. 1.6 23.8 36.1 54.3 18.7 ..........
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total available to FTA........................ 303.8 529.4 710.7 1,033.8 448.8 ..........
===========================================================
Obligated by FTA:
CMAQ............................................ 121.2 289.0 259.7 494.4 92.9 1,257.2
STP............................................. 20.8 125.7 114.8 280.2 78.1 619.6
Interstate substitute........................... 100.0 0.1 83.3 83.3 0 266.7
FHWA earmarks/FAUS.............................. 1.6 13.8 16.0 49.4 8.4 89.2
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total obligated by FTA........................ 243.6 428.6 473.8 907.3 179.4 2,232.7
===========================================================
Pending obligation (carryover):
CMAQ............................................ 55.8 65.2 123.1 87.9 195.1 ..........
STP............................................. 4.4 25.6 93.7 33.7 64.0 ..........
Interstate Substitute........................... 0 0 0 0 0 ..........
FHWA Earmarks/FAUS.............................. 0 10.0 20.1 4.9 10.3 ..........
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total pending obligation...................... 60.2 100.8 236.9 126.5 269.4 ..........
===========================================================
FTA Urbanized area formula transfers to FHWA........ 0 0 0 2.2 0.6 2.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note.--Carryover includes current year recoveries/adjustments from prior year(s) obligations/transfers.
The Committee encourages the Federal Transit Administration
to work with transit authorities to maximize the full potential
of the flexible funding provisions of ISTEA.
Formula grant apportionments.--The Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) made a number of major
changes in the formula grants program of the FTA. As indicated,
the Federal Transit Act still provides formula allocated
programs of capital and operating assistance for urbanized
areas under section 9 and for non-urbanized areas under section
18. However, as a result of ISTEA, the section 16(b)(2) program
of grants for services to elderly and disabled persons is now
distributed by a statutory formula rather than by a
discretionary administrative formula, and thus becomes a part
of the FTA's formula grants program. In addition, the rural
assistance program is now part of the authorization for transit
planning and research and is described under that heading.
The amount recommended is to be distributed as follows:
Urbanized areas with populations of 200,000 or more.--These
areas would receive $1,700,711,794 (not including the one-half
percent set-aside). This is the same level as provided last
year.
Urbanized areas under 200,000 in population.--These areas
would receive $181,083,494 (not including the one-half percent
set-aside) to be distributed 50 percent based on population and
50 percent based on population density. This is the same level
as provided last year.
Non-urbanized areas.--These areas would receive
$109,522,477. These funds are distributed based on non-
urbanized area population. This is the same level as provided
last year.
Elderly and disabled.--The section 16(b)(2) program would
receive $51,600,613, the same level provided last year. The
ISTEA made the following changes in the elderly and disabled
program: (1) the former administrative allocation is not
statutory; (2) eligibility is expanded to public authorities
that coordinate elderly and disabled services; (3) project
eligibility is expanded to cover certain capital costs in
operating contracts; and (4) vehicles purchased under this
program may be leased to public authorities and may be used for
meals-on-wheels service.
Fiscal Year 1997 Section 9 Formula Apportionments
AMOUNTS APPORTIONED TO URBANIZED AREAS OVER 1,000,000 IN POPULATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating
Urbanized area Total assistance
apportionment limitation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta, GA....................... $26,817,559 $2,817,569
Baltimore, MD..................... 23,204,741 4,509,748
Boston, MA........................ 50,644,877 8,467,028
Chicago, IL-Northwestern IN....... 127,741,850 23,457,893
Cincinnati, OH-KY................. 9,063,899 2,442,814
Cleveland, OH..................... 16,032,068 4,469,540
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX............. 24,340,425 4,008,037
Denver, CO........................ 14,523,333 2,736,257
Detroit, MI....................... 23,978,803 9,922,644
Ft Lauderdale-Hollywood-Pompano
Bch, FL.......................... 13,984,435 3,403,116
Houston, TX....................... 28,758,487 4,211,604
Kansas City, MO-KS................ 6,505,811 2,069,850
Los Angeles, CA................... 124,174,916 26,465,555
Miami-Hialeah, FL................. 25,684,752 3,887,455
Milwaukee, WI..................... 11,818,078 2,532,863
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN.......... 16,637,898 3,377,190
New Orleans, LA................... 10,801,022 3,063,597
New York, NY-Northeastern NJ...... 406,850,866 61,292,372
Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport
News, VA......................... 8,157,164 1,946,012
Philadelphia, PA-NJ............... 73,179,576 14,754,704
Phoenix, AZ....................... 14,037,692 2,182,056
Pittsburgh, PA.................... 20,377,775 4,404,259
Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA......... 14,745,816 2,040,724
Riverside-San Bernardino, CA...... 11,150,092 1,166,383
Sacramento, CA.................... 8,565,435 1,613,097
San Antonio, TX................... 13,043,690 2,122,548
San Diego, CA..................... 23,432,494 3,386,799
San Francisco-Oakland, CA......... 74,695,800 9,017,750
San Jose, CA...................... 19,017,840 3,063,813
San Juan, PR...................... 18,639,279 3,482,258
Seattle, WA....................... 32,662,432 2,861,557
St. Louis, MO-IL.................. 15,881,361 4,446,206
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater,
FL............................... 10,831,020 2,420,798
Washington, DC-MD-VA.............. 63,763,063 7,828,278
-------------------------------------
Total....................... 1,383,744,349 239,872,373
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMOUNTS APPORTIONED TO URBANIZED AREAS 200,000 TO 1,000,000 IN
POPULATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating
Urbanized area size Apportionment assistance
limitation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Akron, OH......................... $3,736,080 $1,068,223
Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY....... 4,864,554 1,036,060
Albuquerque, NM................... 3,692,529 715,983
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ. 2,931,154 1,083,235
Anchorage, AK..................... 1,511,993 353,514
Ann Arbor, MI..................... 2,386,685 454,205
Augusta, GA-SC.................... 1,310,449 361,822
Austin, TX........................ 7,393,658 681,375
Bakersfield, CA................... 2,384,858 444,280
Baton Rouge, LA................... 1,924,133 593,692
Birmingham, AL.................... 3,325,133 1,090,569
Bridgeport-Milford, CT............ 4,040,575 946,815
Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY......... 8,281,621 2,779,198
Canton, OH........................ 1,320,640 523,119
Charleston, SC.................... 1,998,963 495,970
Charlotte, NC..................... 4,023,137 597,902
Chattanooga, TN-GA................ 1,642,349 450,735
Colorado Springs, CO.............. 2,399,143 447,449
Columbia, SC...................... 1,898,749 506,333
Columbus, GA-AL................... 1,223,820 379,379
Columbus, OH...................... 7,506,563 2,105,697
Corpus Christi, TX................ 2,371,945 398,138
Davenport-Rock Island-Moline, IA-
IL............................... 1,940,995 518,039
Dayton, OH........................ 8,169,875 1,341,289
Daytona Beach, FL................. 1,451,094 359,735
Des Moines, IA.................... 1,779,745 504,542
Durham, NC........................ 1,812,465 370,789
El Paso, TX-NM.................... 5,837,708 825,225
Fayetteville, NC.................. 1,006,431 341,222
Flint, MI......................... 2,829,503 701,838
Fort Myers-Cape Coral, FL......... 1,492,273 262,047
Fort Wayne, IN.................... 1,284,453 500,447
Fresno, CA........................ 3,464,017 673,470
Grand Rapids, MI.................. 2,765,112 711,831
Greenville, SC.................... 1,455,563 344,063
Harrisburg, PA.................... 1,523,933 519,625
Hartford-Middletown, CT........... 6,140,853 1,054,496
Honolulu, HI...................... 15,027,536 1,305,970
Indianapolis, IN.................. 5,707,339 1,754,741
Jackson, MS....................... 1,272,926 414,816
Jacksonville, FL.................. 5,308,992 929,739
Knoxville, TN..................... 1,492,505 413,520
Lansing-East Lansing, MI.......... 2,190,438 533,804
Las Vegas, NV..................... 7,501,837 633,660
Lawrence-Haverhill, MA-NH......... 2,318,374 392,260
Lexington-Fayette, KY............. 1,315,247 595,036
Little Rock-North Little Rock, AR. 1,774,108 475,798
Lorain-Elyria, OH................. 860,153 358,920
Louisville, KY-IN................. 7,314,901 1,792,128
Madison, WI....................... 3,342,537 457,794
McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX...... 914,994 380,331
Melbourne-Palm Bay, FL............ 2,330,785 323,361
Memphis, TN-AR-MS................. 6,167,177 1,660,925
Mobile, AL........................ 1,576,959 462,840
Modesto, CA....................... 1,961,853 455,526
Montgomery, AL.................... 1,030,778 470,960
Nashville, TN..................... 3,588,752 770,071
New Haven-Meriden, CT............. 6,223,604 1,063,941
Ogden, UT......................... 1,980,219 321,567
Oklahoma City, OK................. 3,418,996 1,065,815
Omaha, NE-IA...................... 3,870,992 1,093,065
Orlando, FL....................... 8,185,392 804,301
Oxnard-Ventura, CA................ 3,702,682 623,767
Pensacola, FL..................... 1,275,912 348,591
Peoria, IL........................ 1,505,966 485,694
Providence-Pawtucket, RI-MA....... 10,771,222 2,183,415
Provo-Orem, UT.................... 1,713,308 374,328
Raleigh, NC....................... 1,819,820 335,902
Reno, NV.......................... 2,552,837 387,233
Richmond, VA...................... 4,055,596 889,706
Rochester, NY..................... 4,910,430 1,426,222
Rockford, IL...................... 1,306,678 446,955
Salt Lake City, UT................ 8,694,258 1,128,032
Sarasota-Bradenton, FL............ 2,509,822 582,302
Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA......... 2,089,012 800,237
Shreveport, LA.................... 1,844,740 484,985
South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI....... 1,600,889 529,802
Spokane, WA....................... 3,895,169 514,098
Springfield, MA-CT................ 4,005,242 934,026
Stockton, CA...................... 2,043,641 616,738
Syracuse, NY...................... 3,458,976 875,658
Tacoma, WA........................ 6,827,947 715,757
Toledo, OH-MI..................... 3,748,515 1,034,105
Trenton, NJ-PA.................... 3,284,201 913,035
Tucson, AZ........................ 5,719,638 764,985
Tulsa, OK......................... 3,071,498 724,300
West Palm Bch-Boca Raton-Delray
Bch, FL.......................... 8,702,731 762,335
Wichita, KS....................... 2,125,079 626,604
Wilmington, DE-NJ-MD-PA........... 4,013,746 926,743
Worcester, MA-CT.................. 2,236,935 534,935
Youngstown-Warren, OH............. 1,680,810 824,093
-------------------------------------
Total....................... 316,967,445 67,177,823
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMOUNTS APPORTIONED TO STATE GOVERNORS FOR URBANIZED AREAS 50,000 TO
200,000 IN POPULATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating
Urbanized area size Apportionment assistance
limitation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama: State apportionment and
limitation for areas 50,000 to
200,000 in population............ $3,401,244 $1,970,561
-------------------------------------
Anniston, AL.................. 328,073 231,980
Auburn-Opelika, AL............ 263,213 129,622
Decatur, AL................... 300,407 152,422
Dothan, AL.................... 252,318 133,304
Florence, AL.................. 351,519 235,002
Gadsden, AL................... 310,683 233,057
Huntsville, AL................ 986,250 504,984
Tuscaloosa, AL................ 608,781 350,190
=====================================
Alaska: State apportionment and
limitation for areas 50,000 to
200,000 in population............ 0 0
=====================================
Arizona: State apportionment and
limitation for areas 50,000 to
200,000 in population............ 540,055 206,966
-------------------------------------
Yuma, AZ-CA (AZ).............. 540,055 206,966
=====================================
Arkansas: State apportionment and
limitation for areas 50,000 to
200,000 in population............ 1,299,521 798,674
-------------------------------------
Fayetteville-Springdale, AR... 358,644 168,344
Fort Smith, AR-OK (AR)........ 488,214 275,251
Pine Bluff, AR................ 329,925 269,436
Texarkana, TX-AR (AR)......... 122,738 85,643
=====================================
California: State apportionment
and limitation for areas 50,000
to 200,000 in population......... 19,905,828 6,801,253
-------------------------------------
Antioch-Pittsburg, CA......... 1,125,722 345,636
Chico, CA..................... 491,513 185,098
Davis, CA..................... 596,669 213,010
Fairfield, CA................. 724,672 255,671
Hamet-San Jacinto, CA......... 604,590 195,698
Hesperia-Apple Valley-
Victorville, CA.............. 771,277 265,938
Indio-Coachella, CA........... 365,579 126,070
Lancaster-Palmdale, CA........ 1,297,316 162,437
Lodi, CA...................... 507,895 175,169
Lompoc, CA.................... 311,924 107,558
Merced, CA.................... 554,543 188,067
Napa, CA...................... 579,437 266,728
Palm Springs, CA.............. 721,877 180,689
Redding, CA................... 417,401 149,645
Salinas, CA................... 1,098,409 423,192
San Luis Obispo, CA........... 520,168 179,409
Santa Barbara, CA............. 1,699,290 700,123
Santa Cruz, CA................ 878,677 376,707
Santa Maria, CA............... 799,435 227,014
Santa Rosa, CA................ 1,550,013 449,066
Seaside-Monterey, CA.......... 1,041,576 521,884
Simi Valley, CA............... 985,926 306,429
Vacaville, CA................. 598,530 206,423
Visalia, CA................... 683,652 225,542
Watsonville, CA............... 376,635 129,889
Yuba City, CA................. 600,962 236,597
Yuma, AZ-CA (CA).............. 2,140 1,564
=====================================
Colorado: State apportionment and
limitation for areas 50,000 to
200,000 in population............ 3,667,841 1,839,230
-------------------------------------
Boulder, CO................... 816,151 412,508
Fort Collins, CO.............. 679,774 294,588
Grand Junction, CO............ 387,035 189,506
Greeley, CO................... 543,695 283,630
Longmount, CO................. 495,465 170,885
Pueblo, CO.................... 745,721 488,113
=====================================
Connecticut: State apportionment
and limitation for areas 50,000
to 200,000 in population......... 12,184,535 4,543,229
-------------------------------------
Bristol, CT................... 578,107 297,793
Danbury, CT-NY (CT)........... 2,051,384 492,302
New Britain, CT............... 1,082,503 626,111
New London-Norwich, CT........ 871,093 533,937
Norwalk, CT................... 2,172,122 676,464
Stamford, CT-NY (CT).......... 2,753,664 1,016,038
Waterbury, CT................. 2,675,662 900,584
=====================================
Delaware: State apportionment and
limitation for areas 50,000 to
200,000 in population............ 276,710 95,414
-------------------------------------
Dover, DE..................... 276,710 95,414
=====================================
Florida: State apportionment and
limitation for areas 50,000 to
200,000 in population............ 8,433,534 3,152,975
-------------------------------------
Deltona, FL................... 280,411 96,684
Fort Pierce, FL............... 671,719 205,216
Fort Walton Beach, FL......... 651,145 258,405
Gainsville, FL................ 834,486 351,847
Kissimmee, FL................. 388,678 134,039
Lakeland, FL.................. 853,097 345,542
Naples, FL.................... 561,454 146,868
Ocala, FL..................... 377,154 147,105
Panama City, FL............... 566,005 234,999
Punta Gorda, FL............... 370,133 127,629
Spring Hill, FL............... 282,947 97,565
Stuart, FL.................... 493,695 170,246
Tallahassee, FL............... 951,271 393,861
Titusville, FL................ 272,308 93,895
Vero Beach, FL................ 344,868 118,916
Winter Haven, FL.............. 534,163 230,158
=====================================
Georgia: State apportionment and
limitation for areas 50,000 to
200,000 in population............ 3,692,411 2,169,758
-------------------------------------
Albany, GA.................... 457,351 316,131
Athens, GA.................... 438,495 197,454
Brunswick, GA................. 252,338 87,007
Macon, GA..................... 819,733 542,798
Rome, GA...................... 257,245 149,674
Savannah, GA.................. 1,072,531 689,903
Warner Robins, GA............. 394,718 186,791
=====================================
Hawaii: State apportionment and
limitation for areas 50,000 to
200,000 in population............ 981,352 475,852
-------------------------------------
Kailua, HI.................... 981,352 475,852
=====================================
Idaho: State apportionment and
limitation for areas 50,000 to
200,000 in population............ 1,942,265 809,759
-------------------------------------
Boise City, ID................ 1,188,500 469,898
Idaho Falls, ID............... 426,054 146,933
Pocatello, ID................. 327,711 192,928
=====================================
Illinois: State apportionment and
limitation for areas 50,000 to
200,000 in population............ 8,896,560 5,371,412
-------------------------------------
Alton, IL..................... 480,795 372,784
Aurora, IL.................... 1,346,571 723,464
Beloit, WI-IL (IL)............ 61,449 25,498
Bloomington-Normal, IL........ 774,567 382,645
Champaign-Urbana, IL.......... 1,093,066 616,763
Crystal Lake, IL.............. 438,876 151,340
Decatur, IL................... 615,288 446,782
Dubuque, IA-IL (IL)........... 14,332 8,765
Elgin, IL..................... 971,352 636,793
Joliet, IL.................... 1,123,162 953,579
Kankakee, IL.................. 440,809 262,596
Round Lake Beach-McHenry, IL-
WI (IL)...................... 639,654 209,575
Springfield, IL............... 896,639 580,828
=====================================
Indiana: State apportionment and
limitation for areas 50,000 to
200,000 in population............ 5,188,859 3,063,742
-------------------------------------
Anderson...................... 419,406 303,284
Bloomington................... 625,861 287,968
Elkhart-Goshen................ 627,268 288,505
Evansville, IN-KY (IN)........ 1,162,011 712,185
Kokomo........................ 422,358 265,091
Lafayette-West Lafayette...... 839,675 439,016
Muncie........................ 617,265 435,588
Terre Haute................... 475,015 332,105
=====================================
Iowa: State apportionment and
limitation for areas 50,000 to
200,000 in population............ 2,824,750 1,777,815
-------------------------------------
Cedar Rapids, IA.............. 877,838 542,576
Dubuque, IA-IL (IA)........... 427,278 302,695
Iowa City, IA................. 505,789 207,305
Sioux City, IA-NE-SD (IA)..... 467,145 311,588
Waterloo-Cedar Falls, IA...... 546,700 413,651
=====================================
Kansas: State apportionment and
limitation for areas 50,000 to
200,000 in population............ 1,371,506 759,970
-------------------------------------
Lawrence, KS.................. 519,362 217,653
St. Joseph, MO-KS (KS)........ 4,287 3,866
Topeka, KS.................... 847,857 538,451
=====================================
Kentucky: State apportionment and
limitation for areas 50,000 to
200,000 in population............ 1,080,971 635,567
-------------------------------------
Clarksville, TN-KY (KY)....... 131,900 73,054
Evansville, IN-KY (KY)........ 161,971 45,056
Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH
(KY)......................... 322,997 218,446
Owensboro, KY................. 464,103 299,011
=====================================
Louisiana: State apportionment and
limitation for areas 50,000 to
200,000 in population............ 3,201,384 1,868,922
-------------------------------------
Alexandria, LA................ 467,173 326,140
Houma, LA..................... 328,608 192,233
Lafayette, LA................. 808,324 428,989
Lake Charles, LA.............. 649,311 413,989
Monroe, LA.................... 617,396 393,577
Slidell, LA................... 330,572 113,994
=====================================
Maine: State apportionment and
limitation for areas 50,000 to
200,000 in population............ 1,393,299 808,464
-------------------------------------
Bangor, ME.................... 286,299 152,758
Lewiston-Auburn, ME........... 332,675 215,633
Portland, ME.................. 711,338 409,648
Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester, NH-
ME (ME)...................... 62,987 30,425
=====================================
Maryland: State apportionment and
limitation for areas 50,000 to
200,000 in population............ 1,549,420 751,514
-------------------------------------
Annapolis, MD................. 504,649 228,635
Cumberland, MD-WV (MD)........ 268,399 180,307
Frederick, MD................. 364,129 125,567
Hagerstown, MD-PA-WV (MD)..... 412,243 217,005
=====================================
Massachusetts: State apportionment
and limitation for areas 50,000
to 200,000 in population......... 6,136,422 4,010,979
-------------------------------------
Brockton, MA.................. 1,120,942 966,707
Fall River, MA-RI (MA)........ 1,093,285 628,972
Fitchburg-Leominster, MA...... 443,045 265,581
Hyannis, MA................... 316,380 109,085
Lowell, MA-NH (MA)............ 1,387,552 997,173
New Bedford, MA............... 1,202,384 695,995
Pittsfield, MA................ 286,398 211,988
Taunton, MA................... 286,436 135,478
=====================================
Michigan: State apportionment and
limitation for areas 50,000 to
200,000 in population............ 5,236,571 3,283,763
-------------------------------------
Battle Creek, MI.............. 437,352 313,820
Bay City, MI.................. 488,593 343,896
Benton Harbor, MI............. 353,412 211,224
Holland, MI................... 396,640 136,779
Jackson, MI................... 488,324 327,621
Kalamazoo, MI................. 1,054,514 614,106
Muskegon, MI.................. 643,210 414,697
Port Huron, MI................ 423,310 218,257
Saginaw, MI................... 951,216 703,363
=====================================
Minnesota: State apportionment and
limitation for areas 50,000 to
200,000 in population............ 1,866,159 1,090,931
Duluth, MN-WI (MN)............ 454,115 358,439
Fargo-Moorhead, ND-MN (MN).... 262,574 152,304
Grand Forks, ND-MN (MN)....... 57,547 37,533
La Crosse, WI-MN (MN)......... 28,190 12,455
Rochester, MN................. 512,199 287,183
St. Cloud, MN................. 551,534 243,017
=====================================
Mississippi: State apportionment
and limitation for areas 50,000
to 200,000 in population......... 1,602,131 906,680
-------------------------------------
Biloxi-Gulfport, MS........... 991,926 552,169
Pascagoula, MS................ 301,051 188,450
Hattiesburg, MS............... 309,154 166,061
=====================================
Missouri: State apportionment and
limitation for areas 50,000 to
200,000 in population............ 2,207,764 1,205,239
-------------------------------------
Columbia, MO.................. 435,869 222,473
Joplin, MO.................... 306,100 158,607
Springfield, MO............... 1,028,265 512,465
St. Joseph, MO-KS (MO)........ 437,530 311,694
=====================================
Montana: State apportionment and
limitation for areas 50,000 to
200,000 in population............ 1,469,715 865,821
-------------------------------------
Billings, MT.................. 566,809 332,854
Great Falls, MT............... 528,563 324,442
Missoula, MT.................. 374,343 208,525
=====================================
Nebraska: State apportionment and
limitation for areas 50,000 to
200,000 in population............ 1,633,875 783,608
-------------------------------------
Lincoln, NE................... 1,563,196 747,115
Sioux City, IA-NE-SD (NE)..... 70,679 36,493
=====================================
Nevada: State apportionment and
limitation for areas 50,000 to
200,000 in population............ 0 0
=====================================
New Hampshire: State apportionment
and limitation for areas 50,000
to 200,000 in population......... 1,984,105 930,889
-------------------------------------
Lowell, MA-NH (NH)............ 4,061 1,136
Manchester, NH................ 831,770 425,529
Nashua, NH.................... 665,139 270,768
Portsmouth-Dover-Rochester, NH-
ME (NH)...................... 483,135 233,456
=====================================
New Jersey: State apportionment
and limitation for areas 50,000
to 200,000 in population......... 1,503,324 1,162,152
-------------------------------------
Atlantic City, NJ............. 1,083,553 913,408
Vineland-Millville, NJ........ 419,771 248,744
=====================================
New Mexico: State apportionment
and limitation for areas 50,000
to 200,000 in population......... 818,642 346,371
-------------------------------------
Las Cruces, NM................ 454,759 185,079
Santa Fe, NM.................. 363,883 161,292
=====================================
New York: State apportionment and
limitation for areas 50,000 to
200,000 in population............ 4,542,091 2,887,397
-------------------------------------
Binghamton, NY................ 1,140,084 753,963
Danbury, CT-NY (NY)........... 15,453 4,225
Elmira, NY.................... 468,155 328,474
Glens Falls, NY............... 321,942 163,510
Ithaca, NY.................... 324,929 112,051
Newburgh, NY.................. 421,930 203,473
Poughkeepsie, NY.............. 886,320 630,599
Stamford, CT-NY (NY).......... 105 109
Utica-Rome, NY................ 963,173 690,993
=====================================
North Carolina: State
apportionment and limitation for
areas 50,000 to 200,000 in
population....................... 7,373,638 3,807,386
-------------------------------------
Asheville, NC................. 569,150 313,739
Burlington, NC................ 412,871 238,562
Gastonia, NC.................. 604,541 363,032
Goldsboro, NC................. 313,952 162,993
Greensboro, NC................ 1,300,253 686,529
Greenville, NC................ 361,483 124,657
Hickory, NC................... 344,754 173,702
High Point, NC................ 581,384 357,277
Jacksonville, NC.............. 561,304 205,012
Kannapolis, NC................ 405,213 207,368
Rocky Mount, NC............... 323,920 111,702
Wilmington, NC................ 529,813 259,914
Winston-Salem, NC............. 1,065,000 602,897
=====================================
North Dakota: State apportionment
and limitation for areas 50,000
to 200,000 in population......... 1,432,692 694,941
-------------------------------------
Bismarck, ND.................. 413,127 217,303
Fargo-Moorhead, ND-MN (ND).... 597,489 285,401
Grand Forks, ND-MN (ND)....... 422,076 192,237
=====================================
Ohio: State apportionment and
limitation for areas 50,000 to
200,000 in population............ 3,939,229 2,454,959
-------------------------------------
Hamilton, OH.................. 814,205 413,830
Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH
(OH)......................... 207,340 123,238
Lima, OH...................... 444,989 296,760
Mansfield OH.................. 429,618 297,105
Middletown, OH................ 559,808 286,086
Newark, OH.................... 341,085 171,899
Parkersburg, WV-OH (OH)....... 50,507 31,162
Sharon, PA-OH (OH)............ 33,305 20,995
Springfield, OH............... 647,550 453,628
Steubenville-Werton, OH-WV-PA
(OH)......................... 232,963 194,158
Wheeling, WV-OH (OH).......... 177,859 166,098
=====================================
Oklahoma: State apportionment and
limitation for areas 50,000 to
200,000 in population............ 613,120 386,416
-------------------------------------
Fort Smith, AR-OK (OK)........ 10,756 6,655
Lawton, OK.................... 602,364 379,761
=====================================
Oregon: State apportionment and
limitation for areas 50,000 to
200,000 in population............ 3,197,413 1,425,107
-------------------------------------
Eugene-Springfield, OR........ 1,505,093 725,646
Longview, WA-OR (OR).......... 10,010 5,369
Medford, OR................... 465,142 194,556
Salem, OR..................... 1,217,168 499,536
=====================================
Pennsylvania: State apportionment
and limitation for areas 50,000
to 200,000 in population......... 8,358,601 5,129,718
-------------------------------------
Altoona, PA................... 571,009 408,051
Erie, PA...................... 1,468,909 929,251
Hagerstown, MD-PA-WV (PA)..... 5,032 3,855
Johnstown, PA................. 526,559 437,207
Lancaster, PA................. 1,328,081 607,678
Monessen, PA.................. 361,422 211,581
Pottstown, PA................. 342,971 118,272
Reading, PA................... 1,550,306 1,108,504
Sharon, PA-OH (PA)............ 240,111 184,335
State College, PA............. 499,732 250,976
Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV-PA
(PA)......................... 1,745 681
Williamsport, PA.............. 418,909 277,812
York, PA...................... 1,043,815 591,515
=====================================
Puerto Rico: State apportionment
and limitation for areas 50,000
to 200,000 in population......... 7,721,593 3,312,130
-------------------------------------
Aguadilla, PR................. 675,534 245,837
Arecibo, PR................... 631,202 284,696
Caguas, PR.................... 1,653,033 615,765
Cayey, PR..................... 488,741 168,563
Humacao, PR................... 422,994 145,877
Mayaguez, PR.................. 908,804 453,778
Ponce, PR..................... 2,022,366 1,056,142
Vega Baja-Manati, PR.......... 918,919 341,472
=====================================
Rhode Island: State apportionment
and limitation for areas 50,000
to 200,000 in population......... 491,500 246,288
-------------------------------------
Fall River, MA-RI (RI)........ 112,673 54,179
Newport, RI................... 378,827 192,109
-------------------------------------
South Carolina: State
apportionment and limitation for
areas 50,000 to 200,000 in
population....................... 2,081,439 1,013,149
-------------------------------------
Anderson, SC.................. 279,937 158,795
Florence, SC.................. 287,937 166,525
Myrtle Beach, SC.............. 301,955 104,116
Rock Hill, SC................. 320,612 149,201
Spartanburg, SC............... 558,898 319,995
Sumter, SC.................... 332,100 114,517
=====================================
South Dakota: State apportionment
and limitation for areas 50,000
to 200,000 in population......... 1,033,499 523,345
-------------------------------------
Rapid City, SD................ 329,153 177,805
Sioux City, IA-NE-SD (SD)..... 9,229 4,219
Sioux Falls, SD............... 695,117 341,321
=====================================
Tennessee: State apportionment and
limitation for areas 50,000 to
200,000 in population............ 1,599,519 887,865
-------------------------------------
Bristol, TN-Bristol, VA (TN).. 149,507 90,241
Clarksville, TN-KY (TN)....... 364,523 167,264
Jackson, TN................... 275,910 148,661
Johnson City, TN.............. 420,576 228,788
Kingsport, TN-VA (TN)......... 389,003 252,911
=====================================
Texas: State apportionment and
limitation for areas 50,000 to
200,000 in population............ 14,810,109 7,687,065
-------------------------------------
Abilene, TX................... 525,437 322,174
Amarillo, TX.................. 974,572 544,163
Beaumont, TX.................. 670,292 436,937
Brownsville, TX............... 974,252 343,413
Bryan-College Station, TX..... 652,589 248,808
Denton, TX.................... 352,510 121,550
Galveston, TX................. 373,934 263,556
Harlingen, TX................. 478,817 213,740
Killeen, TX................... 915,846 322,616
Laredo, TX.................... 1,156,685 440,079
Lewisville, TX................ 406,942 140,316
Longview, TX.................. 400,380 205,890
Lubbock, TX................... 1,140,263 634,745
Midland, TX................... 499,605 258,553
Odessa, TX.................... 554,243 408,081
Port Arthur, TX............... 604,596 418,221
San Angelo, TX................ 519,529 269,195
Sherman-Denison, TX........... 260,056 197,337
Temple, TX.................... 295,237 147,551
Texarkana, TX-AR (TX)......... 238,233 142,859
Texas City, TX................ 633,267 308,822
Tyler, TX..................... 495,199 272,311
Victoria TX................... 343,283 202,360
Waco, TX...................... 747,850 436,203
Wichita Falls TX.............. 596,492 387,585
=====================================
Utah: State apportionment and
limitation for areas 50,000 to
200,000 in population............ 296,007 102,073
-------------------------------------
Logan, UT..................... 296,007 102,073
=====================================
Vermont: State apportionment and
limitation for areas 50,000 to
200,000 in population............ 519,406 244,385
-------------------------------------
Burlington, VT................ 519,406 244,385
=====================================
Virginia: State apportionment and
limitation for areas 50,000 to
200,000 in population............ 3,447,788 2,010,460
-------------------------------------
Bristol TN-Bristol, VA(VA).... 106,438 54,597
Charlottesville, VA........... 495,759 258,207
Danville, VA.................. 281,530 182,428
Fredericksburg, VA............ 330,524 113,974
Kingsport, TN-VA (VA)......... 20,095 15,609
Lynchburg, VA................. 471,637 290,441
Petersburg, VA................ 597,908 414,079
Roanoke, VA................... 1,143,897 681,125
=====================================
Washington: State apportionment
and limitation for areas 50,000
to 200,000 in population......... 3,258,223 1,441,915
-------------------------------------
Bellingham, WA................ 383,883 178,042
Bremerton, WA................. 743,653 218,876
Longview, WA-OR (WA).......... 324,826 172,874
Olympia, WA................... 578,567 220,296
Richland-Kennewick-Pasco, WA.. 603,572 328,900
Yakima, WA.................... 623,722 322,927
=====================================
West Virginia: State apportionment
and limitation for areas 50,000
to 200,000 in population......... 2,504,108 1,811,406
-------------------------------------
Charleston, WV................ 1,007,361 668,361
Cumberland, MD-WV (WV)........ 12,048 10,483
Hagerstown, MD-PA-WV (WV)..... 3,043 2,443
Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH
(WV)......................... 565,572 434,965
Parkersburg, WV-OH (WV)....... 363,736 275,348
Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV-PA
(WV)......................... 156,494 128,467
Wheeling, WV-OH (WV).......... 395,854 291,339
=====================================
Wisconsin: State apportionment and
limitation for areas 50,000 to
200,000 in population............ 6,855,105 3,935,089
-------------------------------------
Appleton-Neenah, WI........... 1,255,293 655,709
Beloit, WI-IL (WI)............ 269,074 155,628
Duluth, MN-WI (WI)............ 117,861 94,707
Eau Claire, WI................ 491,680 237,885
Green Bay, WI................. 953,399 506,229
Janesville, WI................ 361,849 194,329
Kenosha, WI................... 658,857 483,440
La Crosse, WI-MN (WI)......... 523,056 276,146
Oshkosh, WI................... 456,482 282,563
Racine, WI.................... 1,071,608 621,866
Round Lake Beach-McHenry, IL-
WI (WI)...................... 381 99
Sheboygan, WI................. 430,088 238,772
Wausau, WI.................... 319,477 187,716
=====================================
Wyoming: State apportionment and
limitation for areas 50,000 to
200,000 in population............ 717,661 461,199
-------------------------------------
Casper, WY.................... 329,209 247,399
Cheyenne, WY.................. 388,452 213,800
=====================================
Total....................... 181,083,494 92,949,803
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 1997 SECTION 5310 ELDERLY AND PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
APPORTIONMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Allocation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................................. $895,048
Alaska.............................................. 170,260
American Samoa...................................... 51,782
Arizona............................................. 793,269
Arkansas............................................ 635,877
California.......................................... 4,695,021
Colorado............................................ 623,112
Connecticut......................................... 708,934
Delaware............................................ 239,252
District of Columbia................................ 237,736
Florida............................................. 3,179,523
Georgia............................................. 1,150,268
Guam................................................ 130,927
Hawaii.............................................. 294,868
Idaho............................................... 300,943
Illinois............................................ 2,067,652
Indiana............................................. 1,101,400
Iowa................................................ 680,976
Kansas.............................................. 576,528
Kentucky............................................ 859,231
Louisiana........................................... 861,898
Maine............................................... 367,552
Maryland............................................ 865,809
Massachusetts....................................... 1,231,723
Michigan............................................ 1,774,060
Minnesota........................................... 877,525
Mississippi......................................... 618,758
Missouri............................................ 1,116,448
Montana............................................. 278,985
Nebraska............................................ 416,763
Nevada.............................................. 318,980
New Hampshire....................................... 303,270
New Jersey.......................................... 1,471,769
New Mexico.......................................... 370,735
New York............................................ 3,364,457
North Carolina...................................... 1,303,391
North Dakota........................................ 242,670
Northern Marianas................................... 51,628
Ohio................................................ 2,156,316
Oklahoma............................................ 746,261
Oregon.............................................. 696,245
Pennsylvania........................................ 2,578,386
Puerto Rico......................................... 662,273
Rhode Island........................................ 330,982
South Carolina...................................... 722,508
South Dakota........................................ 259,270
Tennessee........................................... 1,050,534
Texas............................................... 2,661,781
Utah................................................ 347,858
Vermont............................................. 220,373
Virgin Islands...................................... 132,526
Virginia............................................ 1,091,465
Washington.......................................... 982,480
West Virginia....................................... 537,338
Wisconsin........................................... 1,002,330
Wyoming............................................. 192,659
-------------------
Total....................................... 51,600,613
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 1997 SECTION 5311 NONURBANIZED AREA FORMULA APPORTIONMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Apportionment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................................. $2,614,842
Alaska.............................................. 389,929
American Samoa...................................... 55,577
Arizona............................................. 1,199,198
Arkansas............................................ 2,090,458
California.......................................... 5,102,125
Colorado............................................ 1,089,100
Connecticut......................................... 987,916
Delaware............................................ 246,461
Florida............................................. 3,279,871
Georgia............................................. 3,823,177
Guam................................................ 158,215
Hawaii.............................................. 429,093
Idaho............................................... 865,683
Illinois............................................ 3,507,552
Indiana............................................. 3,388,215
Iowa................................................ 2,179,334
Kansas.............................................. 1,733,591
Kentucky............................................ 2,861,780
Louisiana........................................... 2,366,899
Maine............................................... 1,142,121
Maryland............................................ 1,425,883
Massachusetts....................................... 1,528,114
Michigan............................................ 4,138,393
Minnesota........................................... 2,381,406
Mississippi......................................... 2,323,943
Missouri............................................ 2,773,725
Montana............................................. 701,271
Nebraska............................................ 1,058,130
Nevada.............................................. 345,463
New Hampshire....................................... 914,696
New Jersey.......................................... 1,307,822
New Mexico.......................................... 1,028,146
New York............................................ 4,603,691
North Carolina...................................... 4,890,479
North Dakota........................................ 518,622
Northern Marianas................................... 51,504
Ohio................................................ 4,978,848
Oklahoma............................................ 2,128,406
Oregon.............................................. 1,689,973
Pennsylvania........................................ 5,553,957
Puerto Rico......................................... 1,659,697
Rhode Island........................................ 212,610
South Carolina...................................... 2,447,709
South Dakota........................................ 632,159
Tennessee........................................... 3,159,713
Texas............................................... 6,671,035
Utah................................................ 479,212
Vermont............................................. 565,205
Virgin Islands...................................... 120,972
Virginia............................................ 2,801,392
Washington.......................................... 1,962,900
West Virginia....................................... 1,669,031
Wisconsin........................................... 2,883,889
Wyoming............................................. 403,344
-------------------
Total......................................... 109,522,477
------------------------------------------------------------------------
University Transportation Centers
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... $6,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 6,000,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 6,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................................
The Committee has approved the budget request of $6,000,000
for the university transportation centers program. ISTEA added
three centers to the ten previously established. These centers
conduct research, training, and development activities related
to the transportation of passengers and property.
The Regional Centers and their focus areas are:
Region I--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Strategic
Management of Transportation Systems.
Region II--City University of New York, Regional Mobility
and Accessibility Investment Strategies.
Region III--Pennsylvania State University, Advanced
Technologies in Transportation Operations and Management.
Region IV--University of North Carolina, Transportation
Safety.
Region V--University of Michigan, Commercial Highway
Transportation.
Region VI--Texas A&M State University, Mobility for
Regional Development.
Region VII--Iowa State University, Midwestern and Rural
Transportation Policy, Planning, and System Management.
Region VIII--North Dakota State University, Rural and Non-
Metropolitan Transportation.
Region IX--University of California, Berkeley, Improving
Accessibility for All.
Region X--University of Washington, Operations Management
and Planning.
The National Centers are:
National Center for Transportation and Industrial
Productivity at the New Jersey Institute of Technology,
National Center for Transportation Management, Research &
Development at Morgan State University, and
Mack-Blackwell National Rural Transportation Study Center
at the University of Arkansas.
Transit Planning and Research
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... $85,500,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 85,500,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 85,500,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................................
The Committee recommends a total of $85,500,000 for the
planning and research, training, and human resources programs
of the FTA. This level is the same level as appropriated in
fiscal year 1996 and as requested in the budget. The bill
contains language specifying that $39,500,000 shall be
available for the metropolitan planning program, $4,500,000 for
the rural transit assistance program, $8,250,000 for the
transit cooperative research program, $22,000,000 for the
national program, $8,250,000 for the state program and
$3,000,000 for the National Transit Institute.
Continued support in fiscal year 1997 is provided for a
number of important, ongoing initiatives including:
Hennepin Community works program, Hennepin County,
Minnesota........................................... $500,000
Project ACTION (Accessible Community Transportation in
our Nation)......................................... 2,000,000
Advanced technology transit bus......................... 6,500,000
Fuel cell bus technology................................ 6,500,000
Advanced transportation and alternative fueled
technologies consortia program...................... 3,000,000
Southeast Iowa, Iowa commuter feasibility study......... 50,000
Santa Barbara Transportation Institute.................. 500,000
Advanced transportation and alternative fueled technologies
consortia program.--The Committee has provided $3,000,000 for
the advanced transportation technologies program. The Committee
intends this level of funding to support the ongoing advanced
transportation technologies projects undertaken by the CALSTART
consortium.
Trust Fund Share of Expenses
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(highway trust fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.........................($1,120,850,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... (1,920,000,000)
Recommended in the bill................................. (1,920,000,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... (+799,150,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997........(.........................)
For fiscal year 1997, the Committee has provided
$1,920,000,000 in liquidating cash for the trust fund share of
transit expenses. This appropriation is liquidating cash
necessary to pay the vouchers the FTA expects in fiscal year
1997.
Discretionary Grants
(limitation on obligations)
(highway trust fund)
Limitation, fiscal year 1996............................($1,665,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... (1,799,000,000)
Recommended in the bill................................. (1,665,000,000)
Bill compared with:
Limitation, fiscal year 1996.............(.........................)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... (-134,000,000)
The bill includes language limiting to $1,665,000,000
obligations for the discretionary grants program. This
represents no change from the 1996 enacted level and a
reduction of $134,000,000 from the budget estimate. The
Committee has adhered to the requirements of ISTEA that direct
that of the funds made available under this heading, forty
percent be available for rail modernization, forty percent be
available for new start discretionary grants, and twenty
percent be available for buses and bus-related facilities. The
budget estimate did not adhere to this statutory requirement.
The following table shows the fiscal year 1996 limitation, the
fiscal year 1997 budget estimate and the Committee
recommendation:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 enacted 1997 request Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed guideway modernization........................... $666,000,000 $725,000,000 $666,000,000
Buses and bus facilities............................... 333,000,000 274,000,000 333,000,000
New starts............................................. 666,000,000 800,000,000 666,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................ 1,665,000,000 1,799,000,000 1,665,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three-year availability of section 3 discretionary funds.--
The Committee has redistributed unallocated new start funds
from projects which were funded in previous fiscal years that
are not likely to obligate those funds in fiscal year 1996.
Funds made available in the fiscal year 1994 Department of
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act and
previous Acts are available for reallocation in fiscal year
1997 as availability for these discretionary funds is limited
to three years from enactment. In addition, $744,000 of funds
made available for the New Bedford/Fall River project in the
1995 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act has been reallocated as the project is being
funded from other resources, and $47,322,000 from the Chicago
Central Area Circulator project which has been cancelled.
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
Seattle-Tacoma commuter rail........................ 1,620,000
Fiscal year 1995:
New Bedford/Fall River.............................. 744,000
Chicago Central Area Circulator balances................ 47,322,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 58,576,000
Therefore, a total of $58,576,000 has been reprogrammed to
the new systems account, increasing the available funding from
$666,000,000 to $724,576,000.
Seattle-Tacoma--The Committee has reprogrammed, without
prejudice, unobligated balances of $1,620,000 for the Seattle-
Tacoma commuter rail project. In previous years, the Committee
appropriated funds to establish commuter rail service over
existing railroad rights-of-way in the heavily congested Puget
Sound area, including the Seattle-Tacoma-Everett corridor. The
Committee notes that a Regional Transportation Authority has
been created which could operate such service and that the
legislature of the State of Washington has enacted legislation
permitting city governments to construct, operate, and maintain
passenger rail systems. The Committee anticipates a local
ballot regarding commuter rail service in the corridor in the
fall of 1996 and encourages project sponsors to seek federal
assistance once the local referendum is approved.
bus and bus facilities
The Committee recommends $333,000,000 for bus purchases and
bus facilities, including maintenance garages. Bus systems are
expected to play a vital role in the mass transportation
systems of virtually all cities. FTA estimates that
approximately 95 percent of the areas that provide mass transit
service do so through bus transit only and over 60 percent of
all transit passenger trips are provided by bus. The Committee
believes that the $333,000,000 recommended under this heading,
together with other appropriations that are available for bus
projects, should provide the funding necessary to retain
existing bus riders as well as to attract new riders who
currently use private automobiles.
Under ISTEA, the federal share for most bus projects is 80
percent. However, the federal share increases to 90 percent for
the incremental costs of bus-related equipment needed to meet
the requirements of the Clean Air Act and the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Technology introduction.--The Committee has not provided
additional funds to accelerate the prototype delivery and
testing of the advanced technology transit bus (ATTB), to
incorporate ATTB technologies to produce a trolley bus, or to
retrofit off-wire trolley buses. Sufficient funds to continue
research and development of the ATTB in accord with the
original schedule have been provided under the transit planning
and research account. Moreover, the Committee believes the bus
and bus facilities account is to provide assistance to transit
authorities to meet their capital needs and to assist them in
complying with federal requirements such as the Clean Air Act
and the Americans with Disabilities Act, not to provide
supplemental funds for FTA's research program.
Michigan reprogramming.--The Committee approves the FTA's
May 6, 1996 reprogramming request relating to fiscal year 1996
capital discretionary bus funds to the State of Michigan.
The recommended amount for buses and bus-related facilities
includes the following allocations:
State of Arizona:
Sun Tran maintenance facility....................... $2,000,000
State of Arkansas, buses and bus facilities............. 5,400,000
State of California:
Eureka intermodal transportation center............. 1,000,000
Folsom, buses....................................... 500,000
Foothills transit bus maintenance facility.......... 9,500,000
Long Beach, buses and bus facilities................ 2,000,000
Mendocino County, buses............................. 600,000
North Orange County, buses.......................... 200,000
Norwalk, buses and bus facilities................... 2,000,000
Riverside County, buses and bus facilities.......... 1,000,000
San Francisco, buses................................ 8,550,000
San Ysidro border intermodal center................. 1,400,000
Santa Barbara metropolitan transit district, buses
and bus facilities................................ 3,000,000
Santa Cruz metropolitan transit district, bus
facility.......................................... 2,000,000
Sonoma County, park-and-ride facilities............. 1,600,000
Yolo County, buses.................................. 2,000,000
State of Colorado:
Fort Collins and Greeley, buses..................... 1,000,000
State of Connecticut:
Bridgeport, buses and bus facilities................ 2,000,000
State of Delaware, buses and bus facilities............. 4,000,000
State of Florida:
Palm Beach County, intermodal facility.............. 2,000,000
Lynx, buses......................................... 5,000,000
Metropolitan Dade County, buses and bus facilities.. 5,000,000
Volusia County, buses............................... 2,000,000
Ybor, buses and bus facilities...................... 1,000,000
State of Georgia:
Chatham, bus facility............................... 2,120,000
MARTA, buses........................................ 4,000,000
State of Iowa, buses and bus facilities................. 19,000,000
State of Illinois:
Chicago, buses and bus facilities................... 10,000,000
Statewide, buses and bus facilities................. 10,000,000
State of Indiana:
Statewide, buses and bus facilities................. 7,500,000
South Bend intermodal facility...................... 5,500,000
State of Kansas, buses and bus facilities............... 2,000,000
State of Kentucky:
Owensboro, vans..................................... 100,000
Statewide, buses and bus facilities................. 6,000,000
State of Louisiana, buses and bus facilities............ 20,000,000
State of Massachusetts:
Worcester Union Station............................. 3,000,000
South Station intermodal center..................... 1,000,000
Gallager transportation terminal.................... 1,000,000
State of Maryland, buses and bus facilities............. 10,000,000
State of Michigan:
Lansing, intermodal facility........................ 1,230,000
SMART, buses and bus facility....................... 2,000,000
Grand Rapids, intermodal facility................... 2,000,000
Flint, bus facility................................. 2,000,000
Kalkaska, buses..................................... 640,000
Dearborn, intermodal facility....................... 1,000,000
Kalamazoo, buses and bus facility................... 1,000,000
Statewide, buses and bus facilities................. 2,130,000
State of Minnesota:
Metropolitan Council Transit Operations, buses and
bus facilities.................................... 12,000,000
State of Missouri:
South St. Louis, buses and bus facilities........... 1,750,000
State of Nevada:
Clark County, bus facilities........................ 5,500,000
State of New York:
Crossroads intermodal station....................... 1,000,000
Elmira, buses and bus facilities.................... 1,000,000
New Rochelle, intermodal facility................... 2,500,000
Syracuse, buses..................................... 4,000,000
Westchester County, bus facilities.................. 500,000
State of North Carolina, buses and bus facilities....... 5,000,000
State of Ohio:
Statewide, buses and bus facilities................. 25,000,000
Triskett bus garage and facilities (including CITME) 3,000,000
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:
Altoona (ISTEA earmark)............................. 3,000,000
Armstrong County Mid-County, buses and bus
facilities........................................ 262,000
Berks Area Reading Transit, intermodal facility..... 400,000
Cambria County, buses and bus facilities............ 2,058,000
Indiana County, buses............................... 680,000
Lehigh and North Hampton Transportation, buses...... 400,000
Mid Mon Valley Transit, buses....................... 80,000
North Philadelphia intermodal center................ 2,000,000
Scranton, buses and bus facilities.................. 1,500,000
Somerset County, vans............................... 120,000
SEPTA............................................... 16,000,000
Williamsport, buses and bus facilities.............. 4,000,000
Statewide, buses and bus facilities................. 2,880,000
State of Tennessee, buses and bus facilities 4,000,000
State of Texas:
Corpus Christi, buses and bus facilities............ 1,250,000
El Paso, buses and bus facilities................... 5,000,000
Polk County, buses and bus facilities............... 1,250,000
Statewide, buses and bus facilities................. 4,400,000
State of Utah:
City of Logan, buses and bus facilities............. 2,000,000
Statewide, buses and bus facilities................. 3,000,000
State of Vermont, buses and bus facilities.............. 2,500,000
Commonwealth of Virginia:
Reston internal bus system, buses................... 500,000
Virginia Beach, intermodal facility................. 1,000,000
State of Washington:
Bremerton, buses and bus facilities................. 4,000,000
Everett intermodal center........................... 4,000,000
Thurston County intercity transit buses............. 1,000,000
Port Angeles, buses and bus facilities.............. 1,500,000
Tacoma Dome......................................... 5,000,000
State of Wisconsin, buses and bus facilities............ 20,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 333,000,000
State of Illinois.--The Committee has provided $20,000,000
for the Illinois Department of Transportation for replacement
buses and transit equipment. This amount includes funds for
replacement buses for the following transit agencies:
$2,240,000 for Champaign-Urbana; $1,344,000 for Madison County;
$1,344,000 for Rock Island; $1,400,000 for Springfield;
$960,000 for rural paratransit; and $2,666,700 for Pace. In
addition, $10,000,000 is provided for a new bus communications
system for the Chicago Transit Authority.
State of Iowa.--The Committee has provided a total of
$19,000,000 for bus and bus facilities within the State of
Iowa. Within this total, the Committee has provided $8,822,200
for the Iowa Department of Transportation and includes $10,100
to Region 6; $387,600 to Region 13; $294,800 to Region 14;
$328,800 to Region 15; and $249,600 to Region 16. In addition,
$61,400 is to be available for bus replacement for Ottumwa;
$866,700 for buses and bus replacements for Fort Dodge;
$1,069,700 for buses for Iowa City; $1,490,000 for buses for
Des Moines; $1,490,000 for park and ride lots for Cedar Rapids;
and $5,200,000 for an intermodal center for Sioux City.
State of Louisiana.--The Committee has included $20,000,000
for buses and bus-related facilities in the State of Louisiana
to be distributed as follows: $1,195,000 for Alexandria;
$1,603,000 for Baton Rouge; $2,405,000 for Jefferson Parish;
$912,000 for Lafayette; $376,000 for Lake Charles; $1,168,000
for Louisiana DOTC; $360,000 for Monroe; $10,932,000 for New
Orleans; and $1,049,000 for Shreveport.
State of Michigan.--The Committee has included a total of
$12,000,000 for buses and bus facilities within the State of
Michigan, which includes $10,000,000 provided by Public Law
102-240. Funds are to be available as follows: $1,230,000 for
the intermodal facility in Lansing; $2,000,000 for SMART;
$2,000,000 for an intermodal center in Grand Rapids; $2,000,000
for a bus facility in Flint; $640,000 for buses in Kalkaska;
$1,000,000 for an intermodal facility in Dearborn; $1,000,000
for Kalamazoo; and $2,130,000 to be distributed by the State.
The Committee has also included a provision (Sec. 337) that
permits the State of Michigan to use the funds provided in
Public Law 102-240 for the purchase of buses and for bus
facilities.
Fairfax County, Virginia.--Any previously appropriated
funds remaining after completion of the Fairfax County park-
and-ride facilities may be available for buses in the Dulles
Corridor.
Alternative fueled vehicles.--In the Energy Policy Act of
1992, Congress expressed its intent that the Federal Government
should promote the acquisition and use of alternative fueled
vehicles in public transit fleets. In light of this intent, the
Committee urges the FTA to give special consideration to grant
applications of transit authorities seeking to purchase
alternative fueled vehicles.
Washoe County, Nevada.--The Committee has not included
funding for the Washoe County Regional Transportation
Commission. While Washoe County has started to improve its bus
fleet, the addition of 17 buses would move the commission into
compliance with greater than half of the ADA requirements.
Given the limited resources available to the Committee for
buses and bus-related facilities, and the fact that many
transit districts are struggling to improve their accessibility
for the disabled, the Committee was unable to meet the request
of Washoe County at this date. The Committee encourages the
project sponsors to continue to seek appropriations.
State of Wisconsin.--Funds made available in Public Law
103-331 for a multi-modal transit platform shall be available
to the State of Wisconsin for the purchase of buses.
fixed guideway modernization
The Committee recommends $666,000,000 from the
discretionary grants program to modernize existing rail transit
systems. The funds are to be distributed as follows:
New York................................................ $228,317,868
Southwestern Connecticut................................ 30,238,186
Northeastern New Jersey................................. 59,852,995
Chicago/Northwestern Indiana............................ 94,083,037
Philadelphia/Southern New Jersey........................ 68,353,400
Boston.................................................. 46,966,395
San Francisco........................................... 43,346,200
Pittsburgh.............................................. 14,619,242
Cleveland............................................... 10,234,467
Baltimore............................................... 11,252,003
New Orleans............................................. 1,977,169
Los Angeles............................................. 5,163,433
Washington, DC.......................................... 14,498,674
Seattle................................................. 4,716,616
Atlanta................................................. 5,363,201
San Diego............................................... 1,865,716
San Jose................................................ 3,367,284
Providence.............................................. 886,831
Dayton.................................................. 1,415,918
Tacoma.................................................. 170,335
Wilmington.............................................. 278,710
Trenton................................................. 493,550
Lawrence-Haverhill...................................... 432,833
Chattanooga............................................. 17,404
Baltimore............................................... 2,077,988
Minneapolis............................................. 970,638
St. Louis............................................... 134,739
Denver.................................................. 323,695
Norfolk................................................. 341,533
Kansas City............................................. 18,106
Honolulu................................................ 221,697
Harford................................................. 376,909
Madison................................................. 176,241
San Juan................................................ 891,176
Detroit................................................. 165,760
Dallas.................................................. 266,485
Sacramento.............................................. 841,768
Hoston.................................................. 1,413,969
Buffalo................................................. 378,659
Portland................................................ 743,813
Miami................................................... 2,752,667
Phoenix................................................. 997,690
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 661,005,000
\3/4\-percent takedown.......................... 4,995,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total appropriation............................... 666,000,000
new starts
The bill includes $666,000,000 of new authority and
$58,576,000 of reprogrammed funds for a total of $724,576,000.
These funds are available for preliminary engineering, right-
of-way acquisition, project management, oversight, and
construction of new systems and extensions. Though the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act authorizes the
federal share for transit programs up to 80 percent of the
project costs, the Committee encourages local transit
authorities to consider contributing more than the minimum 20
percent required under the law. Such an overmatch would
indicate significant local and state support and commitment to
a project. Inasmuch as federal assistance for many projects may
be declining in the future, an overmatch leverages limited
federal funds and may provide the basis for continuing federal
support.
The funds are to be distributed as follows:
Atlanta-North Springs project........................... $66,820,000
Baltimore LRT Extension project......................... 10,260,000
Boston Piers (MOS-2) project............................ 40,181,000
Canton-Akron-Cleveland commuter rail project............ 5,500,000
Chicago transit improvements............................ 25,000,000
Cincinnati Northeast/Northern Kentucky rail line project 3,000,000
DART North Central light rail extension project......... 10,000,000
Dallas-Fort Worth RAILTRAN project...................... 12,500,000
Dekalb County, Georgia commuter rail project............ 1,000,000
Denver Southwest Corridor project....................... 3,000,000
Florida Tri-County commuter rail project................ 9,000,000
Griffin light rail project.............................. 2,000,000
Houston Regional Bus project............................ 40,590,000
Jacksonville ASE extenstion project..................... 15,300,000
Kansas City Southtown corridor project.................. 1,500,000
Los Angeles--MOS-3 project.............................. 90,000,000
Los Angeles-San Diego rail corridor..................... 1,500,000
MARC Commuter Rail Improvements project................. 27,000,000
Miami-North 27th Avenue project......................... 1,000,000
Memphis, Tennessee Regional Rail plan................... 2,000,000
New Jersey Urban Core/Hudson-Bergen LRT project......... 10,000,000
New Jersey Urban Core/Secaucus project.................. 105,530,000
New Jersey West Trenton commuter rail project........... 1,000,000
New Orleans Canal Street project........................ 8,000,000
New Orleans Desire Streetcar project.................... 2,000,000
New York Queens Connection project...................... 35,020,000
Northern Indiana Commuter Rail.......................... 500,000
Orange County Transitway project........................ 5,000,000
Orlando Lynx light rail project......................... 2,000,000
Portland Westside/Hillsboro Extension project........... 90,000,000
Sacramento LRT Extension project........................ 6,000,000
Salt Lake City-South LRT project........................ 20,000,000
St. Louis St. Clair extension project................... 20,000,000
San Francisco Bay Area projects......................... 35,000,000
BART Extension to the SFO airport
San Jose Tasman West LRT project
San Diego-Mid Coast Corridor project.................... 3,000,000
San Juan Tren Urbano project............................ 9,500,000
Staten Island-Midtown Ferry service project............. 375,000
Tampa to Lakeland commuter rail project................. 2,000,000
Whitehall ferry terminal, New York, New York............ 2,500,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 724,576,000
Atlanta north line extension.--The Metropolitan Atlanta
Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) is constructing a 1.9 mile,
two-station extension of the North Line from just north of the
Dunwoody Station to North Springs. The project is part of the
larger North Line extension to the MARTA heavy rail rapid
transit system. The segment from Buckhead to Dunwoody is
expected to open in June 1996. The initial 5.7-mile segment,
from Lenox Station to Buckhead, was constructed without FTA
assistance. When the North Springs extension is completed, it
will serve the rapidly-growing area north of Atlanta, which
includes Perimeter Center and north Fulton County, and will
connect this area with the rest of the region by providing
better transit service for both commuters and inner-city
residents traveling to expanding job opportunities. A full
funding grant agreement (FFGA) was issued for this project in
December 1994, providing for a total of $305,100,000 in new
starts funding. This includes $29,460,000 in fiscal year 1995
and prior year ISTEA funds (plus $10,000,000 in fiscal year
1991), all of which have been obligated. The Committee
recommends $66,820,000 for fiscal year 1997.
Baltimore-LRT extension project.--The Mass Transit
Administration (MTA) of Maryland is building three extensions
of the central light rail transit (LRT) system in metropolitan
Baltimore with FTA support. The extensions are a 2-mile, 2-
station branch off the LRT main line in Linthicum directly into
the Baltimore-Washington International (BWI) Airport terminal,
a 5-mile, 5-station extension from Timonium to Hunt Valley, and
a quarter-mile, one-station spur off the main line into
Pennsylvania Station where Amtrak northeast corridor trains and
MARC commuter trains stop. The project is estimated to cost
about $106,300,000. ISTEA directed FTA to enter into a FFGA
with MTA for the three LRT extensions, and MTA and FTA signed
an FFGA in November 1994. The FFGA requires that, contingent
upon appropriations, FTA provide MTA with $22,600,000 in fiscal
year 1996 and $15,100,000 in fiscal year 1997 new start funds.
In fiscal year 1996, Congress appropriated $15,200,000. The
Committee recommends $10,260,000 for fiscal year 1997.
Boston piers MOS-2 project.--The Massachusetts Bay
Transportation Authority (MBTA) is developing an underground
transitway connecting the MBTA's existing transit system with
the South Boston Piers area, located at the periphery of the
central business district (CBD). This area is slated for future
development, and is expected to more than double its existing
commercial space by 2010. A 1.5-mile tunnel, to be constructed
in two phases, will extend from the existing Boylston Station
to the World Trade Center; five underground stations will
provide connections to MBTA's red, orange, and green lines.
Electric trolleys or dual-mode vehicles will operate in the
transitway tunnel and on surface routes in the eastern end of
the Piers area. -Phase 1 of the project consists of a 1-mile
bus tunnel with three stations located at South Station, Fan
Pier, and the World Trade Center. Phase 2 will extend the
tunnel to Boylston Station. Parts of Phase 1 are integrally
related to construction of the Central Artery/Tunnel highway
project now underway. Joint construction will help reduce
transitway costs, environmental impacts and construction
impacts. Section 3035(j) of ISTEA directs FTA to enter into an
FFGA for this project. An FFGA for this project was issued for
Phase 1 in November 1994, for $330,730,000; this includes the
$92,450,000 provided in fiscal year 1995 and prior years. The
fiscal year 1996 budget provided $19,820,000 for this project,
to which was added $132,750,000 in reallocated prior year
discretionary funds. This leaves $218,320,000 to complete the
project. For fiscal year 1997, the Committee recommendation
includes $40,181,000 for the project.
Canton-Akron-Cleveland commuter rail project.--This
regional line will relieve traffic congestion on Interstate 77
and help with air quality issues in non-attainment areas.
Currently, the Ohio Department of Transportation is reviewing
existing and proposed land use patterns and impacts,
preliminary ridership estimates, and preliminary cost
estimates. This phase will be completed by mid-1996. Phase II
will complete the analysis by assessing the economic and
environmental implications of a commuter rail system, as well
as other transportation modes available to meet anticipated
travel demand. The Committee has included $5,500,000 for the
proposed Canton-Akron-Cleveland commuter rail project and
commends the Ohio Department of Transportation, as the grantee,
for ensuring the project's viability by encouraging a three
city, regional line.
Chicago transit improvements.--The City of Chicago was
developing a $775,000,000 light rail project in downtown
Chicago. The Chicago Central Area Circulator was to have a
network of 18.5 miles of track and 32 stations and improve
congestion and circulation in the central business district.
The project was subsequently canceled. Consistent with the
City's plans to improve circulation in the central business
district, the Committee has provided $25,000,000 for transit
improvements in the downtown Chicago area. The projects
include: installing a cab signal system for the State Street
subway; renovations of the State Street subway continuous
station platform; renovation of the CTA subway station
mezzanine at the Jackson/Van Buren subway station; mezzanine
and platform rehabilitation of the CTA Chicago/State subway
station; and design work for Ravenswood/Douglas Branch
rehabilitation.
Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky rail line project.--The
corridor extends from the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky
International Airport through downtown Cincinnati to Paramount
King's Island Amusement Park in Warren County, Ohio. This 33-
mile corridor paralleling I-71 generally runs in a
northeasterly 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 $3,500,000 for the corridor. For fiscal year 1997,
the Committee has included $3,000,000.
Dallas North Central corridor.--Dallas Area Rapid Transit
(DART) plans to build a North Central Corridor LRT extension
beyond the Park Lane Station and their starter system, which is
currently under construction. The project is 11.4 miles long
with 6 stations, terminating in Plano. The southern 6.8 miles,
from Park Lane to the Richardson Transit Center, would be
double tracked. The northern 5.5 miles would be single tracked
with limited station development. The project is estimated to
cost $354,300,000. The project is now in the preliminary
engineering phase. A draft environmental impact statement
should be ready for circulation the summer of 1996. There is no
ISTEA authorization for this project. Through fiscal year 1996,
Congress has appropriated $5,400,000. For fiscal year 1997, the
Committee recommends $10,000,000 for this project.
Dallas-Fort Worth RAILTRAN project, phase 2.--The RAILTRAN
project will provide commuter rail service between Dallas and
Fort Worth. This project consists of 25 miles of service
between South Irving and Fort Worth. The system is currently in
the preliminary engineering phase. Phase 2 is estimated to cost
$129,010,000. Congress has appropriated $11,400,000 for this
project to date and recommends $12,500,000 for fiscal year
1997.
Dekalb County commuter rail project.--The Committee has
provided $1,000,000 for the DeKalb County, Georgia light rail
project. The project would consist of a preliminary
determination of the feasibility and impact of a proposed rail
line connecting the Lindbergh Station with the East Lake
Station and extending it into south DeKalb to DeKalb College
South Station. The preliminary conceptual study will consist of
numerous activities including: initial location studies for
alignment, stations and maintenance facilities, identify patron
estimates; parking needs, and preliminary cost estimates;
consider property acquisition and major street and utility
relocation; provide preliminary topographic mapping and soil
analysis; and at least one initial public session on the
preliminary conceptual plan.
Denver southwest light rail extension.--The Regional
Transit District (RTD) in Denver is developing an 8.7 mile
light rail extension from I-25 and Broadway in Denver to
Mineral Avenue in Littleton. This double-track line will
operate over an exclusive, grade-separated right-of-way and
connect with the Central Corridor light rail in downtown
Denver, which opened in October 1994. RTD estimates that it
will carry 22,000 passengers a day. The existing Central
Corridor line was built entirely without federal assistance,
and RTD has $26,000,000 for the Southwest Corridor in its
capital reserve. The total federal share for the entire system,
including the locally-funded starter line, is less than 50
percent. RTD is seeking a commitment of $120,000,000 in section
3 funds to complete this project. Preliminary engineering and
environmental reviews have been completed. No prior year funds
have been earmarked for this project, and no funds were
provided in fiscal year 1996. FTA issued an FFGA for this
project in May 1996. The Committee recommends $3,000,000 for
the Denver Southwest light rail extension in fiscal year 1997.
Florida Tri-County commuter rail project.--The Tri-County
Commuter Rail Authority (Tri-Rail) operates a 67-mile commuter
rail system connecting Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties
in Florida. Tri-Rail has been adding service and new stations
to meet increasing demands for service. Tri-Rail's five-year
capital improvement program includes the addition of a second
track on part of the line, rehabilitation of the signal system,
station improvements and parking extensions. The capital
program is estimated to cost $423,300,000. The project is
currently in the preliminary engineering phase. To date,
Congress has appropriated $44,300,000, which are being used for
station improvements, bridge rehabilitation, and double
tracking. The Committee recommends $9,000,000 for this project
in fiscal year 1997.
Griffin light rail project.--The Committee has provided
$2,000,000 for preliminary engineering for the Griffin line
light rail project. The Greater Hartford Transit District is
proposing a 9.2 mile light rail line from Union Station in
Hartford to Griffin Center Office Park in Bloomfield. The
project is estimated to cost $176,000,000. A major investment
study is nearing completion. Congress has not appropriated any
funds for the project in the past.
Houston regional bus project.--The Regional Bus Plan
developed by Houston Metro consists of a package of
improvements to the existing bus system. It consists of service
expansions in most of the region, new and extended HOV
facilities and ramps, several transit centers and park-n-ride
lots, and supporting facilities. The local share for the
project is fifty percent. Section 3035 (uu) of ISTEA directs
FTA to negotiate and sign an FFGA for $500,000,000 for this
project, provided that a locally preferred alternative for the
priority corridor project had been selected by March 1, 1992.
This condition has been met, and the FFGA was issued in
December 1994, to provide a total of $500,000,000 for this
project. This includes $118,900,000 provided in fiscal year
1995 and prior years under ISTEA, as well as $146,070,000 in
pre-ISTEA earmarks. All of these funds have been obligated. The
fiscal year 1996 budget provided an additional $22,360,000. The
FFGA for this project provides $40,590,000 in fiscal year 1997
new starts funds, with the remaining $172,390,000 needed to
complete the project to be provided in fiscal years 1998-2000.
The Committee recommendation reflects the funding schedule
specified in the FFGA.
Jacksonville automated skyway express extension project.--
The Committee recommends $15,300,000 to complete the
Jacksonville automated skyway express. The Jacksonville
Transportation Authority (JTA) is developing a 0.3 mile
extension of the automated skyway express south of downtown
Jacksonville, and completion of a maintenance facility. The
extension consists of an elevated, double track guideway
running from the San Marco to Flagler Station segment, now
under construction, through the South Bank business district to
the Dupont Station. The final segment totals $25,000,000 for
which Congress has appropriated $9,500,000. It is the
Committee's understanding that the JTA has contributed
$25,000,000 to the Florida Department of Transportation
exclusively for the reconstruction of the Fuller Warren Bridge
as a condition funding for the Jacksonville ASE.
Kansas City, southtown corridor project.--The Kansas City
Area Transportation Authority (KCATA) is proposing a 15.2-mile
LRT project in the Southtown Corridor. The project would extend
from the riverfront and downtown Kansas City south to the
Country Club Plaza and to 85th Street and Holmes Road. The
project also includes an eastern line from the Country Club
Plaza to Watkins Drive and south to 75th Street, KCATA proposes
to build the project in phases. The starter project is 5.6
miles in length and runs from the River Market to 51st Street
at the southern edge of the Plaza. It is estimated to cost
$200,000,000 and would carry 16,800 riders per day in 2010.
Section 3035(k) of ISTEA directed the FTA to enter into a
multiyear grant agreement in the amount of $5,900,000 with
KCATA to provide for the completion of the alternative analyses
and preliminary engineering. Through fiscal year 1996, Congress
has appropriated $1,500,000. The Committee recommends an
appropriation of $1,500,000 in fiscal year 1997.
Los Angeles, MOS-3 Extensions of Metro Rail.--The 23-mile
$5,700,000,000 Metro Red Line Rail project is planned as
``minimum operable segments (MOSs) for funding purposes. ISTEA
defined MOS-3 to include three Metro Rail extensions including
the North Hollywood extension, the East Side extension, and the
Mid-City extension. A full funding grant agreement has been
signed, committing $1,417,000,000 in funding. To date, Congress
has appropriated $440,710,000, including $83,980,000 in fiscal
year 1996. For fiscal year 1997, the Committee recommendation
includes $90,000,000 for the project.
The Committee continues to be concerned about a number of
irregularities with the construction of the Los Angeles red
line. Last year, the Committee learned of problems such as
tunnel liner integrity, misalignment of tunnels, a sinkhole in
Hollywood Boulevard, improper use of wooden support wedges
rather than steel supports, investigations into awards of bids
and insurance contracts, and other improper activities. This
year, the Committee has learned more about the life expectancy
of the tunnel; a potential new alignment planned tunnel in the
Mid-City section of the project; further sinkage associated
with subway construction mounting potential legal claims
against the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority
(LAMTA), now totaling almost $2,000,000,000; new charges of
claims billings fraud; and an Arthur Anderson report that
concluded that the LAMTA has done a poor job overseeing the
private engineering firms responsible for LAMTA's designs and
that the LAMTA has other oversight deficiencies. The Committee
believes that the amount recommended in the bill, in addition
to other state and local funding, will be sufficient to further
the project while allowing LAMTA, under new leadership to
continue to improve its oversight and quality assurance
programs. Further, the Committee directs the Federal Transit
Administration to continue its aggressive oversight program by
retaining the project management oversight staff that were
added last year.
The Congress and this Committee have recognized the growing
trend of states, cities and other municipalities diverting or
attempting to divert airport revenue. To counter that trend and
to preclude airports from supplementing cities' coffers,
Congress included a special provision in the Department of
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Acts for
fiscal years 1994 and 1995 which stated that none of the funds
provided by those Acts should be available to any state or
municipality that diverts revenue generated by a public airport
in violation of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act, as
amended. The Committee continues to be concerned about ongoing
and proposed diversion of airport revenue. The Los Angeles City
Council recently rejected a proposed diversion of $30,000,000
of airport revenues to the City's budget. The Committee
appreciates this action and will continue to monitor the
actions of the City of Los Angeles--and other municipalities--
to ensure the proper and legal use of airport revenues.
Continued attempts to illegally divert revenue from an airport
will be considered in all decisions regarding the funding for
transportation projects before the Committee.
Los Angeles-San Diego (LOSSAN) rail corridor.--The LOSSAN
improvements are part of a long-range plan to increase speed,
safety and capacity for rail service in the Los Angeles-San
Diego rail corridor. The project consists of three grade
separation projects along the corridor, including one in the
City of Commerce, the City of Fullerton and the City of Solana
Beach. Through fiscal year 1996, Congress has appropriated
$18,400,000. Project costs total $20,000,000. The project is at
the 95 percent design stage and will be ready for construction
soon. For fiscal year 1997, $1,500,000 is recommended for the
project.
MARC commuter rail project.--The Committee recommends
$27,000,000 for the MARC commuter rail project in fiscal year
1997. The Mass Transit Administration (MTA) of Maryland is
extending the Maryland Commuter Rail (MARC) system to provide
service from Point of Rocks to Frederick, Maryland. This
extension will provide service from suburban Montgomery and
Frederick counties to Baltimore, Maryland and Washington, D.C.
The project involves track, signal, station improvements along
an existing freight line. The environmental assessment of the
Frederick extension has been completed, station sites have been
selected, and final design is underway. MARC expects to
initiate service on this extension in 1998. ISTEA authorized
funds in the amount of $160,000,000 for this project. An FFGA
was issued in June 1995, to provide a total of $105,250,000 to
complete the project. This includes $13,890,000 provided in
fiscal year 1995; an additional $33,360,000 was appropriated in
prior years, all of which has been obligated. The fiscal year
1996 budget provided $9,980,000 for this project, leaving
$81,480,000 needed to complete the FFGA.
Miami-North 27th Avenue corridor.--The Metro-Dade Transit
Agency (MDTA) is considering rail, busway, and bus options for
improving transportation in the 9.5 mile N.W. 27th Avenue
corridor. One alternative is an elevated heavy rail line which
would operate in full integration with stage 1 metrorail,
connect with major regional educational and sports facilities,
and terminate at the Dade/Broward county line. The preliminary
capital cost of the rail alternative is $453-$463 million. This
includes final design, right-of-way and rolling stock
acquisition. A major investment study has been completed. There
is no authorization for this project in ISTEA. Congress has
appropriated $1,900,000 in fiscal year 1996 which will be used
to fund preliminary engineering and preparation of draft and
final environmental impact statements. The Committee recommends
$1,000,000 for fiscal year 1997.
Memphis regional rail.--The Memphis Area Transit Authority
(MATA) is studying transit options in the corridor between
downtown Memphis and the Medical Center. The Medical Center
Corridor connects the two largest employment centers in the
region. One alternative being studied is an expansion of the
2.2-mile vintage rail trolley that MATA currently operates in
downtown Memphis. Through fiscal year 1996, Congress has
appropriated $1,700,000 for a regional transit/rail plan. The
Committee recommends $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1997.
New Jersey urban core/Hudson-Bergen LRT.--The New Jersey
Transit Corporation (NJ Transit) is proposing a 20.5 mile, 33-
mile-station light rail transit project along the Hudson River
Waterfront in Hudson County. The line would extend from the
Vince Lombardi park-n-ride lot in Bergen County to Bayonne,
passing through Port Imperail in Weehauken, and New Jersey
City. The core of the system would serve the high-density
commercial centers in Jersey City and Hoboken, and provide
connections with NJ Transit commuter rail service, PATH trains
to Newark and Manhattan, and the Port Imperial ferry from
Weehauken to Manhattan. This project is a major component of
the Urban Core program of interrelated projects defined in
ISTEA, designed to significantly enhance mobility in the
Northeastern New Jersey area. ISTEA specifically exempted these
projects from the FTA section 3 evaluation criteria. New Jersey
Transit is seeking a total of $623,990,000 in section 3 funding
to complete a 10-mile ``first construction stage'' from Hoboken
Terminal to 34th Street in Bayonne and Westside Avenue in
Jersey City. A total of $108,990,000 in fiscal year 1995 and
prior year funds have been allocated to the Hudson-Bergen LRT,
including $19,900,000 in pre-ISTEA earmarks, all of which have
been obligated. The Committee has recommended $10,000,000 for
the Hudson-Bergen LRT project in fiscal year 1997.
New Jersey urban core/Secaucus.--As part of its Urban Core
program of interrelated projects, New Jersey Transit is
constructing a major commuter rail transfer station in
Secaucus, at the point where its Main and Bergen Lines
intersect with the Northeast Corridor Line. The project
consists of a new, three-level transfer station; track, signal
and bridge updates; and construction of a new platform and
elevated walkway. It will allow 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.
Located in the Meadowlands, this project is part of a potential
public/private partnership which could include a major
commercial center. Section 3031 of ISTEA identifies the
Secaucus Transfer Station as an element of the New Jersey Urban
Core program of projects, and requires FTA to enter into a FFGA
for elements that can be fully funded in fiscal years 1992
through 1997. In addition, ISTEA earmarked $634,400,000 for the
entire Urban Core program of projects. Section 3031(c)
specifically exempts these projects from the project
justification requirements. An FFGA was issued for the Secaucus
Transfer project in December 1994 to provide a total of
$444,260,000 through fiscal year 1998, including $233,180,000
funds already provided in prior year appropriations, all of
which has been obligated. The Committee recommends $105,530,000
for fiscal year 1997.
West Trenton commuter rail, New Jersey.--The Committee has
provided $1,000,000 for the West Trenton commuter rail line.
The West Trenton line would provide transit service to southern
and central Somerset County as well as the northern and western
portions of Mercer County. It is estimated to provide service
to 1,750 commuters a day. The service would be offered from
West Trenton to Bound Brook, with potential stops at Hopewell
and Belle Mead. The train would then join the Raritan Valley
line and terminate at Newark. Passengers traveling south could
also board SEPTA trains to Philadelphia.
New Orleans Canal Street streetcar.--The Regional Transit
Authority (RTA) is developing a 4.4 mile streetcar project in
downtown New Orleans. The Canal Streetcar would extend along
the median of Canal Street from the Canal Ferry at the
Mississippi River in the Central Business District, through the
Mid-City neighborhood, to two outer termini at N. Anthony and
Degado Community College/City Park. The capital cost estimate
is $92,600,000. The project is currently in the preliminary
engineering phase. For fiscal years 1994 through 1996, Congress
has appropriated $18,400,000. The Committee recommendation
includes $8,000,000 for the Canal Street streetcar in fiscal
year 1997.
New Orleans Desire streetcar line reconstruction.--The
Regional Transit Authority seeks to design and construct the
fabled Streetcar Named Desire route as a major transit artery.
Using the Royal and Bourbon/Dauphine Streets, the four mile
line would travel through the historic New Orleans
neighborhoods of Bywater, Faubourg Marigny and the Vieux Carre
(the French quarter). The Committee has included $2,000,000 for
preliminary engineering and design activities.
New York Queens connection.--The New York Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (MTA) is constructing a connection
from 63rd Street tunnel to the Queens Boulevard subway lines.
The Queens Boulevard Connection consists of approximately \1/
3\-mile of new tunnel, with corresponding track, signal work,
and real estate acquisition. This project will relieve severe
overcrowding on the Queens Boulevard subway lines by diverting
service from the bottleneck at the 63rd Street Tunnel, allowing
the operation of an additional 15 trains per hour between
Manhattan and Queens. Approximately \1/3\ of the 60,000 peak
passengers currently traveling through the 63rd Street tunnel
are expected to use this new route.
An FFGA was issued for this project in February 1994 in the
amount of $306,100,000. A total of $145,880,000 in fiscal year
1995 and prior year funds has been obligated for this project,
and the fiscal year 1996 budget provided an additional
$125,200,000. This leaves $35,020,000 required to fulfill the
FFGA, which reflects the Committee's recommendation for fiscal
year 1997.
Northern Indiana commuter rail.--The Committee has provided
$500,000 for a major investment study for the Westlake Corridor
commuter rail project in Indiana. The Westlake Corridor would
be a new commuter rail service that would operate on an
abandoned right-of-way that was previously secured by the
Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District. Westlake
Corridor would begin in the Lowell/St. John area of central
Lake County and travel northward through Munster and Hammond,
linking with the existing East/West South Shore railroad line
and terminating at Randolph Street Station in Chicago,
Illinois. The Westlake Corridor will eventually serve high
residential growth areas in south central Lake County, Munster
and Hammond. The major investment study will refine the
proposed alignment and provide total cost estimates for the
project.
Orange County transitway project.--The Orange County
Transportation Agency (OCTA) and the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) have recently constructed HOV lanes
on three Orange County freeways' including I-405, SR-55, and
SR-57. Construction of joint HOV/transitway facilities is
currently taking place on I-5 and SR-9 and is scheduled to be
completed by 2000. Upon completion, the 100-mile transitway/HOV
network will encompass all of Orange County's major freeways,
with the exception of SR-22. As originally envisioned, the I-
405/SR-55 Transitway and Direct Access Ramps project consisted
of the HOV/transitway connector ramps between the I-405 and SR-
55 freeways, 7,759 park-n-ride spaces; and 361 express buses to
serve six activity centers. The original project has been
scaled back. OCTA now envisions 6,735 park-n-ride spaces and 50
new express buses through the year 2010. The project was not
authorized in ISTEA. Through fiscal year 1996, Congress has
appropriated $20,300,000. For fiscal year 1997, the Committee
recommends $5,000,000 for this project.
Orlando Lynx light rail project.--In September 1992, the
Florida Department of Transportation began developing a
multimodal master plan to identify improvements to the
Interstate 4 corridor from the Polk/Osceola county line to I-95
in Volusia County. That plan contains a light rail transit
(LRT) component which would encompass approximately 24 miles.
The minimum operating segment from the Lynx systems plan
indicates an LRT from Central Parkway (Altamonte Springs) in
Seminole County to the Orlando/Orange County international
drive tourist district. The LRT would be located in the median
of a reconstructed Interstate 4, or adjacent to an existing
railroad corridor. The total cost of the project, including
park-n-ride, bus and LRT facilities is approximately
$650,000,000 to $800,000,000. For fiscal year 1997, the
Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000.
Westside light rail project, Portland, Oregon.--The
Westside-Hillsboro Light Rail project extends the existing MAX
system from the terminus in downtown Portland to downtown
Hillsboro. The route includes a three mile twin tube tunnel
under the West Hills. The project is 17.7 miles long with 20
stations, 9 park-n-ride lots, and parking spaces for
approximately 3,700 automobiles. The project will include 36
low-floor light rail vehicles. Section 3035(b) of ISTEA directs
the FTA to enter into a multiyear agreement with the Tri-County
Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (Tri-Met) in the
amount of $515,000,000 for the segment from downtown Portland
to 185th Avenue. Consistent with P.L. 102-143, two extensions
were combined into a single $910,000,000 project in December
1994, and Tri-Met entered into a $910,000,000 FFGA with FTA
that month. The 1994 FFGA for the Westside-Hillsboro project
provides a contingent commitment of new start funds of
$74,000,000 to fund one-third of the Hillsboro extension cost.
Construction is underway along the entire segment with
approximately $619,000,000 committed and $382,000,000 spent
through September 1995. Overall, the project is 40 percent
complete. The projected revenue service date is 1998. For
fiscal year 1997, the Committee recommends $90,000,000 for this
project.
Sacramento South corridor.--The Sacramento Regional Transit
District (RT) is developing an 11.3 mile light rail project on
the Union Pacific right-of-way in the South Sacramento
Corridor. RT has elected to phase the project to maximize the
use of available state and local capital funds and to
correspond with available operating funds. Phase 1, known as
the Interim Operable Segment (IOS), consists of a 6.3-mile
segment of the full project. The segment would operate between
downtown Sacramento and Meadowview Road. The estimated capital
cost of the IOS is $254,500,000. Phase 2 is estimated to cost
an additional $22,000,000. Section 3035 of ISTEA directed FTA
to enter into a multiyear grant agreement with RT for
$26,000,000 to provide for the completion of alternatives
analysis, preliminary engineering, and final design. Of that
amount, $4,000,000 has been appropriated through fiscal year
1996 and $6,000,000 is recommended for the Sacramento south
corridor in fiscal year 1997.
Salt Lake City/south LRT.--The Utah Transit Authority (UTA)
is implementing a 15-mile light rail (LRT) line from downtown
Salt Lake City parallel to I-15 and State Street to suburban
areas to the south. The LRT line will operate at-grade on city
streets in downtown Salt Lake City (two miles) and in a
railroad right-of-way (13 miles) owned by UTA to the suburban
community of Sandy. The total cost of this project, including a
maintenance facility, vehicles, stations, park-n-ride centers,
and finance costs is estimated at $312,500,000. The LRT project
is part of the Interstate 15 corridor improvements which
include reconstruction of a parallel segment of I-15. Section
3035(f) of ISTEA directed FTA to enter into a multiyear grant
agreement with UTA which provides $131,000,000 in new start
funds to carry out the construction of the project. Through
fiscal year 1996, Congress has appropriated $38,600,000
(including $15,520,000 in funds from fiscal years prior to
ISTEA) for right-of-way acquisition, engineering, design and
construction. For fiscal year 1997, the Committee has included
$20,000,000 for the Salt Lake City/South LRT, of which not less
than $10,000,000 shall be for related high occupancy vehicle
lane and intermodal design costs.
St. Louis, St. Clair County, Illinois corridor, MetroLink
extension.--The Bi-State Development Agency (Bi-State) is
proposing a 24.8 mile light rail line between downtown East St.
Louis, Illinois, and the vicinity of Scott Air Force Base. The
project would connect with the MetroLink light rail project
that opened in July 1993. The adopted alignment variation,
which would add up to 2 miles to the project and serve the
Belleville Area College, is also being considered. The project
is estimated to cost $396,000,000. The preliminary engineering
phase of project development has been initiated. This phase
will include development of a supplemental draft EIS and a
final EIS, which are estimated to be completed by September
1996. The project was not authorized in ISTEA. Through 1996,
Congress has appropriated $14,000,000 for the project. For
fiscal year 1997, the Committee has recommended $20,000,000.
San Francisco area projects.--The Committee recommends a
total of $35,000,000 for new start projects in the San
Francisco Bay area and has agreed to provide the funds
consistent with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's
(MTC) Resolution 1876. The San Francisco Bay Area's Rail
Extensions Program is a $3,500,000,000 undertaking of
interrelated rail projects. The program will extend a total of
six rail lines in the San Francisco Bay Area: an extension of
four BART lines, extension of the Santa Clara County
Transportation Agency's light rail system, and an extension of
the CalTrain commuter rail system into downtown San Francisco.
Of the six lines, two will be funded with Section 3 new start
rail funds, the Tasman light rail extension in Santa Clara
County and the BART extension to Colma and continuing to San
Francisco International Airport. Section 3032 of the Federal
Transit Act provides for multiyear funding for the San
Francisco Bay area extension program. It further provides that
the Secretary negotiate and execute full funding grant
agreements that are consistent with the MTC Resolution No.
1876.
A memorandum of understanding (MOU) has been agreed to by
the MTC, the Santa Clara County Transit District, the Bay Area
Rapid Transit District (BART), and the San Mateo County Transit
District (SamTrans), that describes the allocation of available
federal funds to each project. The parties to this MOU trust
FTA and MTC to work cooperatively to recommend annual
appropriations levels needed to meet the funding plan for each
project. Should one of the region's two projects not be in a
position to fully utilize the federal funds in a given year,
the parties to the MOU trust FTA and MTC to continue to
recommend necessary appropriation levels as long as there is
demonstrated need for this level of funding for either of the
region's two projects.
San Francisco BART extension to the airport.--Local
officials in the San Francisco have proposed a four-
station, 6.4-mile extension of the Bay Area Transit
(BART) system from Colma to an intermodal station
serving the San Francisco International Airport. The
route will serve the cities of South San Francisco and
San Bruno, connect with the airport, and continue to
Millbrae. The majority of the route is to follow a
combination of existing and abandoned railroad rights-
of-way.
The Committee has provided sufficient resources to
continue the BART proposed extension to the San
Francisco International Airport during fiscal year
1997. Over the past year, BART and FTA have been
working to resolve many of the Committee's concerns.
Progress has been made to date; there still remain,
however, a number of significant unresolved issues that
must be resolved before a long-term financial
commitment can be made to this project. For example,
the cost estimate of the project is $1,167,000,000.
Four assumptions in the finance plan could affect its
viability:
(1) The project's borrowing costs could grow
significantly should BART not receive forecasted
appropriation levels--levels that are too optimistic--
over the next seven years. Costs also could be higher
than projected if the estimated savings from the
design-build approach do not materialize and if
escalation is understated.
(2) California state law prohibits BART from using
its own resources for the purpose of extending service
or facilities outside its district. BART must establish
a borrowing program because expenses are expected to
exceed revenues during the height of construction and
produce cash shortfalls of up to $240,000,000.
(3) The airport has committed $200,000,000 to the
project, however, the airport has not outlined how
airport resources could be used for the BART project
and what types of activities could be funded. The
aerial structure and how the airport will participate
have to be reviewed by the FAA to determine the
eligibility, the use of airport passenger facility
charges and airport improvement programs funds, and
whether the airport's participation is consistent with
applicable federal law.
(4) All of the remaining state and local contributors
face financial limitations that have capped their
current pledges to the BART project. For example,
though the state has committed $98,000,000 to the
project, California Transportation Commission officials
have said that the transportation capital fund may not
have sufficient balances to fully fund the project in
the future.
In addition, the final environmental impact analysis
has not been completed and approved, and may face legal
challenges.
Given these numerous concerns, the Committee directs
the FTA not to execute a full funding grant agreement
(FFGA) until the State of California enacts a change in
law that will permit BART to use its own revenues for
the purposes of extending service or facilities outside
its district or another alternative financing program
is established, and until the airport determines the
source of funds it would use to pay for that portion of
the BART project located on the airport's property and
the FAA determines that the share of the cost to be
borne by the airport and its users is consistent with
federal transportation policy and regulation. In
addition, when executing an FFGA, the Committee directs
that the federal costs of the project not exceed
$750,000,000, including all unanticipated
contingencies, interest and other financing costs. BART
and the project sponsors and financiers must accept the
risks associated with all potential cost overruns.
The administration and the department have announced
its intentions to sign an FFGA for the BART extension
airport project. The Committee is disturbed to learn,
however, that internal FTA project review and other
permitting approval processes have been unjustifiably
expedited and that a complete and thorough analysis of
the underlying cost estimates, financial plan and
ridership estimates by FTA and project management
oversight staff may have been compromised. Therefore,
the Committee reiterates its directive included in the
conference report accompanying the Department of
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
1996 that directs the FTA to advise the Committee sixty
days prior to executing an FFGA that the aforementioned
concerns and those included in last year's conference
report have been fully addressed.
Tasman.--The Santa Clara County Transit District
(SCCTD) is constructing a 12.4-mile light rail system
from northeast San Jose to downtown Mountain View,
connecting with both the Guadalupe LRT in northern
Santa Clara County and the Caltrain commuter rail
system. Construction will proceed in two phases. The
Phase 1 West Extension will connect the northern
terminus of the Guadalupe Light Rail System in Santa
Clara with the CalTrain Commuter Rail station in
downtown Mountain View, a distance of 6.7 miles. The
Phase 2 East Extension will complete the project.
Section 5328(c)(1)(B) defines the Tasman Corridor
project as one element of a program of interrelated
projects to be considered together for the purposes of
federal requirements, along with the BART extensions to
Colma and the San Francisco airport. In addition,
Section 3032(c) of ISTEA directs the Secretary to
approve the construction of these projects, and Section
3032(e) of ISTEA authorizes $568,500,000 in new starts
funds. An additional $12,750,000 was authorized
specifically for the Tasman project by ISTEA section
3032(b)(2). Phase 1 is expected to require $90,000,000.
This does not include the $93,970,000 provided in
fiscal year 1995 and prior years, $33,230,000 remains
unobligated.
San Diego Mid-Coast corridor.--The Metropolitan Transit
Development Board (MTDB), the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans), and the San Diego Association of
Governments are proposing commuter rail improvements, a light-
rail line, and high occupancy vehicle lanes in the Mid-Coast
Corridor. The corridor extends about 12 miles along the I-5
near the Pacific Ocean from I-8 near Old Town, north to the
vicinity of the University of California, San Diego, University
Town Centre shopping mall, and Carmel Valley. The commuter rail
improvements consist of a new station and parking expansion on
the existing Coaster line. The project is estimated to cost
$5,700,000. The 10.3 mile Mid-Coast LRT project would extend
from Old Town to North University City, and would include 9
stations. The line would connect the Mission Valley and South
LRT lines and the Coaster line at the Old Towne Transit Center.
An initial phase is proposed from Old Town to Balboa Avenue.
The LRT line and supporting bus services are estimated to cost
$353,300,000. The proposed HOV lanes would be built by Caltrans
in the median of I-5 between Carmel Mountain Road and I-8.
Section 3035(g) of ISTEA directed FTA to sign a multiyear grant
agreement with MTDB providing $27,000,000 for the completion of
alternatives analysis and the final environmental impact
statement and to purchase right-of-way. Through fiscal year
1996, Congress has appropriated $4,100,000. The Committee
recommendation includes $3,000,000 for this project in fiscal
year 1997.
San Juan, Puerto Rico, Tren Urbano.--The Puerto Rico
Department of Transportation and Public Works (DPTW), through
its Highway and Transportation Authority (HTA), is proposing a
10.7 mile double-track guideway between Bayamon Centro and the
Sagrado Corazon area of Santurce in San Juan. Approximately
forty percent of the alignment is at or near grade. The
remainder, aside from a short below-grade section in the Centro
Medico area and underground through Rio Piedras, is generally
elevated above roadway rights-of-way. The project is estimated
to cost $1,110,000,000. ISTEA does not contain an authorization
for this project. To date, Congress has appropriated
$12,400,000 for the Tren Urbano project. For fiscal year 1997,
the Committee recommendation includes $9,500,000 for this
project.
Staten Island-Midtown ferry service project.--The New York
City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) has proposed
constructing of terminals and initiating high speed ferry
service between Staten Island and Midtown Manhattan. The
service would be provided by privately owned and operated
ferries without public operating subsidies. The estimated cost
of this project is $12,600,000. The estimate ridership is 4,800
per day. Section 3035(d) of ISTEA directed the FTA to negotiate
and sign a multiyear grant agreement for $12,000,000 to carry
out capital improvements for the proposed project. Congress
appropriated $1,000,000 in fiscal year 1992. During fiscal year
1995, FTA approved a grant in the amount of $250,000 for design
and engineering activities only. Funding of $375,000 is
recommended by the Committee in fiscal year 1997 for continued
design, engineering and construction-related activities.
Tampa-Lakeland commuter rail project.--The Hillsborough
Area Transit Authority (HART) is undertaking a study of
transportation alternatives in the 32-mile corridor between
Tampa and Lakeland, Florida. One alternative to be considered
is a commuter rail line on existing CSX tracks that parallel I-
4. The commuter rail alternative is estimated to cost
approximately $30,000,000. HART is about to undertake a major
investment study that will consider alternatives for addressing
transportation problems in the I-4 corridor. In fiscal year
1996, Congress appropriated $500,000 for the corridor. For
fiscal year 1997, the Committee recommendation includes
$2,000,000 for this project.
Whitehall ferry terminal.--The Committee recommendation
includes $2,500,000 for the Whitehall Ferry Terminal in New
York City. The New York City Department of Transportation and
the New York City Economic Development Corporation 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 ferry service has
been operating out of interim facilities since then. The
preliminary estimate of the cost of reconstruction is
approximately $80,000,000. Currently, 60,000 people use this
terminal a day. Preliminary design began in March 1996. Final
design is expected to begin in June 1996 and be completed by
February 1998. Construction is programmed to begin in late 1998
and will take three years to complete. Through fiscal year
1996, Congress has appropriated $5,000,000.
Mass Transit Capital Fund
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(highway trust fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\.....................($2,375,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... (2,000,000,000)
Recommended in the bill................................. (2,000,000,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996............(.......................)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997..........(.......................)
\1\ Includes supplemental of $375,000,000 in the Omnibus Consolidated
Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.
This liquidating cash appropriation covers obligations
incurred under contract authority provided for activities
previously discussed under the discretionary grant program. The
Committee recommends $2,000,000,000 in liquidating cash for
mass transit capital programs.
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... $200,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 200,000,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 200,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.....................................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................................
The bill includes the budget estimate of $200,000,000 for
the construction of the Washington, D.C. Metrorail system. The
Committee recognizes that the administration, the transit
authority and the state and local governments in the
metropolitan Washington region have reached agreement on
financing the remaining 13.5 miles of the adopted regional
system and are committed to completion of the system on the
``fast track'' schedule. The Committee further recognizes that
a reliable federal appropriation is critical to securing the
necessary credit arrangement required to keep the ``fast
track'' construction program on schedule. The Committee
supports the completion of the remaining 13.5 miles and is
recommending the budget request to permit WMATA to proceed with
the ``fast track'' construction program.
Violent Crime Reduction Program
(Violent Crime Trust Fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996.........................................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... $10,000,000
Recommended in the bill.................................................
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996....................................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.................. -10,000,000
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 Committee has not funded this new
program in fiscal year 1997 given the current budget
constraints. Further, a separate categorical program is
duplicative and unnecessary as the capital expenses described
above are allowable expenses under the formula program.
SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
The Corporation's operations program consists of lock and
marine operations, maintenance, dredging, planning and
development activities related to the operation and maintenance
of that part of the Saint Lawrence Seaway between Montreal and
Lake Erie within the territorial limits of the United States.
The Committee maintains a strong interest in maximizing the
commercial use and competitive position of the Saint Lawrence
Seaway. The general language under this heading is the same as
the language provided last year and requested in the fiscal
year 1997 budget. Continuation of this language in addition to
that under the operations and maintenance appropriation will
provide the Corporation the flexibility and access to available
resources needed to finance costs associated with unanticipated
events which could threaten the safe and uninterrupted use of
the Seaway. The language permits the Corporation to use sources
of funding not designated for the harbor maintenance trust fund
by Public Law 99-662, but which have been historically set
aside for non-routine or emergency use-cash reserves derived
primarily from prior-year revenues received in excess of costs;
unused borrowing authority; and miscellaneous income.
Operations and Maintenance
(harbor maintenance trust fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\..................... $10,150,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 10,065,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 10,037,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... -113,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -28,000
\1\-Excludes reductions of $586,000 to comply with working capital fund
and administrative provisions and $15,000 to comply with the Omnibus
Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.
The bill includes an appropriation of $10,037,000 for the
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation. The Committee
has reduced the Seaway's non-pay inflationary adjustment by
$28,000 so that each operating administration within the
department receives a 1.5 percent non-pay inflationary
adjustment. The Seaway had requested a 3 percent non-pay
inflationary adjustment in its 1997 budget estimate.
RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION
The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) was
originally established by the Secretary of Transportation's
organizational changes dated July 20, 1977. The agency received
statutory authority on October 24, 1992. RSPA has a broad
portfolio. Its diverse jurisdictions include hazardous
materials, pipelines, international standards, emergency
transportation, and university research. As the department's
only multimodal administration, RSPA provides research,
analytical and technical support for transportation programs
through headquarters offices and the Volpe National
Transportation Systems Center.
Summary of Fiscal Year 1997 Program
The Committee recommends $55,117,000 in new budget
authority to continue the operations, research and development,
and grants-in-aid administered by the Research and Special
Programs Administration. This is $9,558,000 less than the 1996
amount and $7,280,000 less than the budget estimate. The
following table summarizes fiscal year 1996 program levels, the
fiscal year 1997 program requests, and the Committee's
recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1996 Fiscal year 1997 Recommended in
Program enacted \1\ estimate the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research and special programs............................. $23,937,000 $28,169,000 $23,929,000
Pipeline safety........................................... 31,448,000 34,028,000 30,988,000
Emergency preparedness training curriculum................ 400,000 200,000 200,000
Emergency preparedness grants \2\......................... 8,890,000 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 64,675,000 62,397,000 55,117,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
Research and Special Programs
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\..................... $23,937,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 28,169,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 23,929,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... -8,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -4,240,000
\1\ Excludes reductions of $387,000 to comply with working capital fund,
awards, and administrative provisions.
RSPA's research and special programs administers a
comprehensive nationwide safety program to (1) protect the
nation from the risks inherent in the transportation of
hazardous materials by water, air, highway and railroad; (2)
oversee the execution of the Secretary of Transportation's
statutory responsibilities for providing transportation
services during national emergencies; and (3) coordinate the
department's research and development policy planning,
university research, and technology transfer. Overall policy,
legal, financial, management and administrative support to
RSPA's programs also is provided under this appropriation. The
total recommended program level for research and special
programs is $23,929,000. This is a decrease of $8,000 below the
amount provided in 1996 and a reduction of $4,240,000 below the
budget request. Budget and staffing data for this appropriation
are as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1996 Fiscal year 1997 Recommended in
enacted \1\ estimate the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous materials safety................................ $12,650 ,000 $12,812,000 $12,772,000
(Positions)........................................... (111) (111) (111)
Research and technology................................... 3,288,000 7,488,000 3,323,000
(Positions)........................................... (13) (13) (13)
Emergency transportation.................................. 1,022,000 993,000 993,000
(Positions)........................................... (7) (7) (7)
Program support........................................... 7,388,000 6,876,000 6,841,000
(Positions) \2\....................................... (46) (46) (46)
Accountwide adjustment.................................... -411,000 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 23,937,000 28,169,000 23,929,000
(Positions)....................................... (177) (177) (177)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include reductions of $387,000 to comply with working capital fund, awards, and administrative
provisions.
\2\ Includes one position previously funded in aviation information management not transferred to Bureau of
Transportation Statistics.
The Committee recommends the following changes to the
budget request for this appropriation:
Hazardous Materials:
Delete funding for internship specialist program.... -$40,000
Research and Technology:
Hold technology development to 1996 level........... -3,465,000
Reduce funding for technology dissemination by 50
percent........................................... -100,000
Hold technology applications at FY 1996 level....... -600,000
Program Administrative Support:
Reduce information resources management............. -35,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Net change to budget estimate....................... -4,240,000
Compliance support.--The Committee has provided $220,000
for compliance support, which is $40,000 less than requested.
The Committee has not provided funding for the intern
specialist program because it does not see the merit of this
program.
Technology development.--The Committee recommends
$1,266,000 for technology development, which is the same amount
as provided in fiscal year 1996. RSPA requested a 271 percent
increase in this program without adequately addressing why such
growth is necessary for an agency that does not conduct any
direct research, but instead is responsible for technology
sharing, policy formulation, and research agenda-setting.
Technology dissemination.--The Committee has reduced the
budget request of $200,000 for technology dissemination by
$100,000. In 1996, RSPA spent $75,000 on technology
dissemination. Realizing that people are beginning to access
the internet for available research information, the Committee
has provided a slight increase in funding for technology
dissemination activities but does not believe that a 166
percent increase is necessary.
Technology application.--The Committee has provided
$600,000 for technology applications, which is the same level
as funded in 1996. The Committee has not increased funding for
this effort because RSPA did not make a compelling case as to
why a doubling of the budget was necessary.
The Committee understands that in fiscal year 1996,
$430,000 of these funds were transferred to the Secretary's
office of technology deployment so that this office, in
conjunction with the Volpe Center, could work on a variety of
transportation information infrastructure issues. However,
since the position of director for technology deployment has
recently become vacant, the Committee believes that RSPA should
begin to undertake these activities directly. According to
RSPA, approximately forty to fifty percent of the staff time
within RSPA's office of research policy and technology transfer
is devoted to coordinating transportation research and
technology transfer programs with the office of technology
deployment in support of department-wide coordination
initiatives. Without having to undertake these coordination
efforts, RSPA could more effectively utilize its staff and work
on a variety of research projects.
The Committee suggests that RSPA review the mission and
structure of the intelligent transportation systems joint
program office, which has dual reporting responsibility to both
the Deputy Secretary and the FHWA Administrator, to determine
whether its office of research policy and technology transfer
could be redesigned in a similar manner so that it would not
duplicate activities with OST's office of technology
deployment. RSPA should consider such a structure to better
ensure coordination within the operating administrations'
research programs and with private sector organizations.
Information resources management.--Due to budget
constraints, the Committee has provided $435,000 for
information resources management, which is $35,000 less than
requested.
Pipeline Safety
(Pipeline Safety Fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\..................... $28,750,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 31,500,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 28,460,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... -290,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997.................. -3,040,000
\1\ Excludes reductions of $213,000 to comply with working capital fund,
awards and administrative provisions, and $65,000 to comply with the
Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996.
The pipeline safety program is responsible for a national
regulatory program to protect the public against the risks to
life and property in the transportation of natural gas,
petroleum and other hazardous materials by pipeline. The
enactment of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 also expanded the
role of the pipeline safety program in environmental protection
and resulted in a new emphasis on spill prevention and
containment of oil and hazardous substances from pipelines. The
office develops and enforces federal safety regulations and
administers a grants-in-aid program to state pipeline programs.
The bill includes $30,988,000 to continue pipeline safety
operations, research and development, and state grants-in-aid
in fiscal year 1997. This represents a decrease of $460,000
below the level provided in 1996 and a reduction of $3,040,000
below the budget request. The bill specifies that, of the total
appropriation, $2,528,000 is to be derived from the oil spill
liability trust fund and $28,460,000 is to be derived from the
pipeline safety fund. In addition, the Committee has included
language that permits the office of pipeline safety (OPS) to
use $1,000,000 from its reserve fund for one-call notification
grants.
The Committee recommends the following changes to the
budget request for this appropriation:
Hold information systems to 12 percent increase......... -$140,000
Delete funding for nondestructive evaluation............ -900,000
Reduce funding for state grants......................... -500,000
Delete funding for new risk management initiative....... -500,000
Fund one-call through reserve account................... -1,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Net change to budget request........................ -$3,040,000
Information systems.--Due to budget constraints, the
Committee has provided $1,350,000 for information and analysis,
which is $140,000 less than requested. At this level, the
office will be able to begin integrating external data into the
OPS information systems and continue its shift to risk
management.
Nondestructive evaluation.--The Committee has deleted
funding for nondestructive evaluation. OPS has recently signed
a contract to determine if ``pig'' technology can be used to
detect outside force damage. This contract is estimated to cost
$2,700,000 from fiscal years 1996-1998. Currently, OPS has
$1,700,000 available for the nondestructive evaluation project,
which consists of fiscal year 1996 appropriated funds and prior
year funding. Although the Committee agrees that completing the
nondestructive evaluation project is a critical step in
improving government and industry's technical ability to
diagnose and characterize defects in pipelines and allocate
resources for remedial actions on a prioritized basis, the
large amount of prior year funding that has been earmarked for
this project reduces the need to fully fund this project in
fiscal year 1997, when it will not be completed until the
following fiscal year.
State grants.--The Committee has reduced the funding for
state grants by $500,000. This will provide the same level of
funding in fiscal year 1997 as was provided in fiscal year
1996. Even though OPS received $12,000,000 for assistance to
states in carrying out pipeline safety programs in 1996,
$1,000,000 of this total was earmarked for damage prevention
programs. Because the Committee is not providing funding for
one-call under the state grant program in fiscal year 1997, the
Committee is actually providing a $1,000,000 increase to the
state grant programs, which will better fund states'
participation in the OPS compliance and inspection programs.
Risk management grants.--The Committee has not provided the
$500,000 requested for risk management grants to states due to
budget constraints. In fiscal year 1997, OPS plans to award
risk management demonstration projects to 4-6 participants,
which means that risk management programs will only be ongoing
in a few states. If these states receive 50 percent of their
grant funding from OPS, they should be able to participate in
the risk management demonstration projects without adversely
affecting their compliance and inspection programs. Instead of
funding risk management in the other states, which are not
expected to participate directly in the first few years of the
risk management program, the Committee has fully funded OPS
training initiatives. This will provide state inspectors and
other personnel with the necessary training in risk management
practices. Until training is completed in most states, it
appears to be unnecessary to fund risk management initiatives
across the board.
One-call notification.--The Committee has not appropriated
any funding for one-call notification systems; however, the
Committee has provided bill language that allows OPS to use up
to $1,000,000 from its reserve fund for this initiative. OPS
currently has $18,400,000 in its reserve fund. Each year, OPS
uses its reserve to finance various aspects of its program
until user fees are collected from the natural gas and the
liquid petroleum industries. OPS plans to collect user fees in
the first quarter of fiscal year 1997, instead of the second
quarter in fiscal year 1996 or the third quarter in fiscal year
1995. This indicates that OPS will not be as dependent on the
user fees and could spend down some of its reserve fund without
negatively impacting its operations.
Emergency Preparedness Grants
(emergency preparedness fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... $400,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 200,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 200,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... -200,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................................
The Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act
of 1990 (HMTUSA) requires RSPA to: (1) develop and implement a
reimbursable emergency preparedness grant 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
mandatory training curriculum for emergency responders.
The bill includes $200,000, the same amount requested for
fiscal year 1997, for activities related to emergency response
training curriculum development and updates, as authorized by
section 117(A)(i)(3)(B) of HMTUSA.
The bill also deletes language, as requested, that
specified an obligation limitation for the emergency
preparedness grants program. Removing this limitation will
allow RSPA to obligate carryover balances and recoveries from
prior years, which the language had prohibited in the past.
Office of Inspector General
salaries and expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... $40,238,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 39,771,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 39,450,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriaton, fiscal year 1996...................... -788,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -321,000
The Inspector General's office was established in 1978 to
provide an objective and independent organization that would be
more effective in: (1) preventing and detecting fraud, waste,
and abuse in departmental programs and operations; and (2)
providing a means of keeping the Secretary of Transportation
and the Congress fully and currently informed of problems and
deficiencies in the administration of such programs and
operations. According to the authorizing legislation, the
Inspector General (IG) is to report dually to the Secretary of
Transportation and to the Congress.
The bill provides $39,450,000 for the office of inspector
general, a decrease of $788,000 below the fiscal year 1996
enacted level. The President's budget requested $39,771,000.
The bill specifies that none of the funds may be utilized for
contract audits. Beginning in fiscal year 1997, audits of
specific acquisition programs and acquisition contracts by the
Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) will be financed by the
programs themselves, consistent with the Committee's report
language last year. The budget proposed cost sharing between
the IG and the individual programs for these audit services.
The Inspector General should also discontinue inclusion of DCAA
report findings in the semi-annual reports of the office of
inspector general, since the IG will serve largely as an
intermediary for the acquisition of these services, and will no
longer finance them directly through the IG budget.
Audit reports.--The Committee requests the Inspector
General to continue forwarding copies of all audit reports to
the Committee immediately after they are issued, and to
continue to make the Committee aware immediately of any review
that recommends cancellation or modifications to any major
acquisition project or grant, or which recommends significant
budgetary savings.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics
office of airline information
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... $2,200,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 3,100,000
Recommended in the bill..................... ...........................
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... -2,200,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... -3,100,000
The Committee has not provided $3,100,000 from the airport
and airway trust fund to finance the office of airline
information within the Bureau of Transportation Statistics
(BTS). The Committee has included bill language that would
permit the BTS to collect up to $3,100,000 in user fees to
conduct activities related to airline statistics.
The work of the BTS consists of compiling transportation
statistics, implementing a long-term data collection system,
coordinating information collection, and making statistics
available. The Bureau acquired the office of airline
information in 1995 from RSPA. The office of airline
information collects financial and operational information from
U.S. certified airlines.
The BTS is directed to prepare a report analyzing aviation
statistics fees to be raised from private and government
entities. Such analyses shall include a proposed fee schedule,
demand elasticity, effect on private business, and any
additional proposals to ensure that the aviation statistics
program is fully funded from offsetting collections. This
report should be forwarded to the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations not later than September 1, 1996.
The Committee notes that section 6006 of the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 provides an
additional $25,000,000 to the BTS, an increase of $5,000,000,
or 25 percent, above the 1996 level. These funds are available
to compile, analyze, and publish a comprehensive set of
transportation statistics to provide timely summaries and
totals (including industry-wide aggregates and multi-year
averages) of transportation-related information. It is the
opinion of the Committee that these funds could be available
for the compilation of airline statistics should the BTS be
unable to raise sufficient funds to cover the costs of
analyzing aviation statistics. The Committee may also consider
augmenting the funds available to the BTS through agency
reimbursable agreements should the user fee analysis conclude
that the fees collected would be insufficient to cover the
costs of airline statistics.
Surface Transportation Board
salaries and expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996 \1\..................... $8,421,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997 \2\................... 3,000,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 12,344,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... +3,923,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997................... +9,344,000
\1\ Included under section 342 for the successor of 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 reduced as
offsetting collections are received.
The Surface Transportation Board was created on January 1,
1996 by P.L. 104-88, the Interstate Commerce Commission (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 provisions to the Board and certain
other motor carrier functions to the Federal Highway
Administration. The Board is specifically responsible for
regulation of the rail and pipeline industries and certain non-
licensing regulations of motor carriers and water carriers. The
new law empowers the Board through its exemption authority to
promote deregulation administratively on a case-by-case basis
and continues intact the important rail reforms of the Staggers
Rail Act of 1980, which have helped substantially improve rail
service and the profitability of the railroad industry.
The Committee recommends a total appropriation of
$12,344,000. This appropriation consists of the following
components:
Salaries and expenses................................... $11,344,000
Severance costs......................................... 1,000,000
Salaries and expenses.--The Committee has included
$11,344,000 to provide for salaries and expenses of 134 staff
years in fiscal year 1997. This is $2,923,000 more than was
appropriated in fiscal year 1996; however, the Board was funded
only for three-quarters of the year.
Severance costs.--The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for
the statutory liability of severance payments and unemployment
compensation costs for former Interstate Commerce Commission
and Board employees who were separated from government service
by reductions-in-force during fiscal year 1996 and whose
payments continue into fiscal year 1997. If the Board does not
require the total amount provided for severance costs, the
remaining funds should be shifted to the salaries and expenses
account.
User fees.--The Committee disagrees with the budget request
to fund the entire operation of the Surface Transportation
Board, or $15,344,000, from the collection of user fees. The
budget estimate includes a $3,000,000 appropriation that would
be reduced as offsetting collections are received during the
fiscal year, so as to result in a final fiscal year 1997
appropriation of not more than $0.
Current statutory authority, under the Independent Offices
Appropriations Act (31 U.S.C. 9701), grants the Board the
authority to collect user fees; however, not to the level
provided in the budget estimate. Legislative change to the
Board's authorizing statute to mandate an industry assessment
program of $15,344,000 would require Congress to enact such
authority prior to October 1, 1996, which is not likely. Even
assuming that Congress approves legislation that would
authorize the Board to recover the full costs of administering
its programs, the Board would have to undertake necessary
rulemakings to determine the appropriate level of these
assessments. These rulemakings could not be completed in a
timely manner to ensure adequate funding for the Board in
fiscal year 1997.
The Board is in the process of updating and changing its
user fees. As such, the Board has issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking that anticipates collecting approximately $3,000,000
in fiscal year 1997. The Committee has included the collection
of some or all of these user fees in its calculation of the
Board's needs as these user fees will supplement direct
appropriations provided for fiscal year 1997.
The Committee has retained the bill language which provides
that any fees received in excess shall remain available until
expended but shall not be available for obligation until
October 1, 1997.
TITLE II
RELATED AGENCIES
ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... $3,500,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997....................... 3,540,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 3,540,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... +40,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................................
The Committee recommends $3,540,000 for the operations of
the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board,
an increase of $40,000 above the 1996 levels, and the same as
the budget estimate.
The activities of the Board include: ensuring compliance
with the standards prescribed by the Architectural Barriers
Act; ensuring that public conveyances, including rolling stock,
are readily accessible to and usable by physically handicapped
persons; investigating and examining alternative approaches to
the elimination of architectural, transportation, communication
and attitudinal barriers; determining what measures are being
taken to eliminate these barriers; developing minimum
guidelines and requirements for accessibility standards; and
providing technical assistance to all programs affected by
Title V of the Rehabilitation Act.
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996......................... $38,774,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997 \1\................... 42,407,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 42,407,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1996..................... +3,633,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997...................................
\1\ The President's budget request was for $40,300,000; however, it was
later amended to $42,407,000.
Under the Independent Safety Board Act, the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is responsible for improving
transportation safety by investigating accidents, conducting
special studies, developing recommendations to prevent
accidents, evaluating the effectiveness of the transportation
safety programs of other agencies, and reviewing appeals of
adverse actions involving airman and seaman certificates and
licenses, and civil penalties issued by the Department of
Transportation.
The bill includes an appropriation of $42,407,000 for the
NTSB, an increase of $3,633,000 above the 1996 level. This
amount is the same as the amended budget request. The amount
recommended provides for a full-time equivalent employment
(FTE) level of 370, an increase of 20 FTEs.
Currently, the Safety Board is participating in the highest
level of major accident investigations in its history, with
limited resources. During fiscal year 1996, the Safety Board
undertook a variety of efforts to readjust to its resources so
that it could continue to provide in-depth coverage on a
variety of domestic and international aviation accidents, rail
accidents, and hazardous materials investigations, in addition
to its ongoing investigations on all modes of transportation.
In fiscal year 1997, an increase is necessary so that the
Safety Board has sufficient resources and personnel available
to fully investigate these accidents in a timely manner. The
Committee recommends that the Safety Board make every effort to
fill its new FTE positions with trained investigators so that
it has enough depth within each specialty to cover back-to-back
accidents.
The following table summarizes the fiscal year 1996 program
level, the President's fiscal year 1997 request, and the
Committee's recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1996 Fiscal year 1997 Recommended in bill
enacted estimate ------------------------
Program --------------------------------------------------
Staff Budget Staff Budget Staff Budget
years authority years authority years authority
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Policy and direction................. 45 $5,506,000 45 $5,694,000 45 $5,694,000
Aviation safety...................... 122 13,439,000 129 14,696,000 129 14,696,000
Surface transportation............... 94 10,290,000 99 11,207,000 99 11,207,000
Research and engineering............. 48 5,485,000 56 6,618,000 56 6,618,000
Administration....................... 31 2,737,000 31 2,831,000 31 2,831,000
Administrative law judges............ 10 1,317,000 10 1,361,000 10 1,361,000
Total.......................... 350 38,774,000 370 42,407,000 370 42,407,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee expects to be advised if the Board proposes
to deviate in any way from the total FTE allocations or by more
than ten percent from the funding allocations listed above.
Pilot age.--In 1959, the FAA issued the ``Age 60 Rule''
which prevented pilots from flying air carriers past the age of
60 because of concerns about safety. Since 1959, this rule has
been challenged repeatedly, but unsuccessfully. In December
1995, FAA made the ``Age 60 rule'' applicable to commuter
operations as well.
The Committee directs NTSB to undertake a study that would
determine the feasibility of allowing pilots to fly past age
60. Currently 8 countries allow pilots to fly past age 60,
although maximum age varies among the countries. This study
should review, among other things, (1) pilot age and accident
data for commuter aviation pilots in the United States and air
carrier pilots flying past age 60 in other countries to
determine if there is a relationship between the two variables
and (2) new studies, which will be released shortly, that
review the effect of pilot age on the multitude of cognitive
and physical skills needed to safely operate an air transport
aircraft. Also, this report should discuss the feasibility of
combining age and performance testing as an alternative to the
``Age 60 rule''. NTSB should provide this report to the House
and Senate Committee on Appropriations by April 1, 1997.
PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION
Administrative Expenses and Limitation on Operating and Capital
Expenses
Limitation on
Administrative operating/
expenses capital
Limitation, fiscal year 1996...... $50,741,000 .................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1997. ................. .................
Recommended in the bill........... ................. .................
Bill compared with:
Appropriations fiscal year
1996......................... -50,741,000 .................
Budget estimate, fiscal year
1997......................... ................. .................
The Committee has concurred with the budget request to
delete the limitation on administrative expenses of the Panama
Canal Commission.
On February 10, 1996, the Department of Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996 was enacted into law,
Public Law 104-106 contained provisions which amended the basic
statute governing the structure of the Panama Canal Commission
and reconstituted the Commission as a U.S. government
corporation.
This status as a government corporation is not new for the
Canal, as the Commission's predecessor, the Panama Canal
Company, operated the waterway between July 1951 and October
1979 as a wholly owned U.S. government corporation in the
executive branch. When the 1977 Panama Canal Treaty entered
into force in 1979, the Congress established the Commission as
an appropriated-fund agency. Under that arrangement, the
Commission was subject to annual appropriations by the Congress
for all of its operating expense and capital improvements.
After a period of demonstrated fiscal responsibility, the
Commission, which generates all of its own revenues and
operates at no cost to the U.S. taxpayer, was converted from an
appropriated fund to a revolving fund.
With these latest amendments in February 1996, the Canal
has come full circle, returning to the government corporation
status under which it operated the Canal for the 28 years
immediately preceding the treaty period.
Public Law 104-106 does not exempt the agency from
oversight by the Congress and Executive Branch. The Commission
is subject to all the Congressional review provisions of the
Government Corporation Act, including the requirement to submit
to Congress its budget proposal. P.L. 104-106 did not repeal
the requirement for annual appropriation legislation for the
Commission's administrative expenses. Congress retains the
ability to review the Commission's budget and the flexibility
to exercise appropriate oversight over the Commission's budget
and programs.
With enactment of P.L. 104-106, the Commission is better
positioned to manage the transfer of control over the Canal to
the Government of Panama on December 31, 1999.
TITLE III
GENERAL PROVISIONS
(including transfers of funds)
The Committee concurs with the general provisions that
apply to the Department of Transportation and related agencies
as proposed in the budget with the following changes:
The Committee has not approved the requested deletion of
the following sections, all of which were contained in the
fiscal year 1996 Department of Transportation and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act (section numbers are different):
Section 313 prohibits the use of funds for regulations that
would establish a vessel traffic safety fairway in California.
Section 315 prohibits the use of funds to award multi-year
contracts for production end items that include certain
specified provisions.
Section 319 prohibits the use of funds to enforce certain
regulations relating to slot management at O'Hare International
Airport.
Section 320 limits funds to compensate in excess of 335
staff years under the federally-funded research and development
contract between the Federal Aviation Administration and the
Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development.
Section 321 reduces funding for activities of the
Transportation administrative service center of the Department
of Transportation and limits obligational authority of the
center to $114,812,000.
Section 323 prohibits funds to be used to prepare, propose,
or promulgate any regulation pursuant to title V of the Motor
Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act prescribing corporate
average fuel economy standards for automobiles as defined in
such title, in any model year that differs from standards
promulgated for such automobiles prior to enactment of this
section.
Section 324 prohibits the use of funds to be used for
planning, engineering, design or construction of a sixth runway
at the new Denver International Airport.
Section 327 prohibits the use of funds for any type of
training which (a) does not meet needs for knowledge, skills,
and abilities bearing directly on the performance of official
duties; (b) could be highly stressful or emotional to the
students; (c) does not provide prior notification of content
and methods to be used during the training; (d) contains any
religious concepts or ideas; (e) attempts to modify a person's
values or lifestyle; or (e) is for AIDS awareness training,
except for raising awareness of medical ramifications of AIDS
and workplace rights.
Section 328 prohibits the use of funds in this Act for
activities designed to influence Congress on legislation or
appropriations except through proper, official channels.
Section 329 requires the Federal Transit Administration's
oversight of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
(WMATA) to be based in Washington, D.C.
Section 330 prohibits the use of funds for the improvement
of Miller Highway in New York City, New York.
Section 331 limits funds provided in this Act to $850,000
for expenses of advisory committees.
The Committee has included the following general provisions
as requested with modifications:
Section 302 requires fiscal year 1997 pay raises for
programs to be absorbed within appropriated levels in this Act
or previous appropriations Acts, similar to that contained in
the fiscal year 1996 Department of Transportation and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act. The Committee would not allow pay
raises to be absorbed within unexpired unobligated balances of
previous appropriations Acts.
Section 305 prohibits funds in this Act for salaries and
expenses of more than one hundred and seven political and
Presidential appointees of the Department of Transportation.
Section 310 would be continued with modifications. The
Committee continues to limit first quarter obligations to 12
percent. The Committee would not place separate obligation
limitations on various appropriated and contract-authority
funded demonstration projects, and would not subject the bonus
program to the obligation limitation for federal-aid highways
programs. Also, the Committee would not set-aside $30,000,000
for highway and highway safety construction programs;
$15,000,000 for the Symms Recreational Trails program;
$20,000,000 for a construction skills training program; and
$15,000,000 for a congestion pricing program. Also, the
Committee would not restrict funding for the timber bridge
program.
Section 325 provides that not to exceed $3,100,000 in
expenses of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics necessary
to conduct activities related to airline statistics may be
incurred but only to the extent such expenses are offset by
user fees.
The Committee has not included provisions proposed in the
budget:
(1) pertaining to the Panama Canal Commission; (2)
allowing the Director of the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics to enter into grants, cooperative agreements, and
other transactions to collect data on the impact of natural
disasters on transportation systems; and (3) allowing transfer
authority not to exceed 5 percent between discretionary
appropriations in this Act.
In addition, the following new general provisions are
recommended by the Committee:
Section 334 prohibits funds in this Act for a third track
on the Metro-North Railroad Harlem Line in Bronxville, New
York.
Section 335 amends section 5328(c)(1)(E) of title 49,
U.S.C., to include the locally preferred alternative for the
South/North Corridor project in Oregon.
Section 336 allows previous appropriations for the
Cleveland Dual Hub corridor project to be available for the
Berea Red Line extension project.
Section 337 allows the State of Michigan flexibility in
distributing Federal discretionary funds for buses and bus
facilities.
Section 338 provides $2,400,000 for activities of the
National Civil Aviation Review Commission.
Section 339 requires the Secretary of Transportation to
convey to the Montauk Historical Association the U.S.
government's interest in Light Station Montauk Point, located
in Montauk, New York.
TITLE IV
MISCELLANEOUS HIGHWAY PROVISIONS
The Committee recommends a new title that contains
miscellaneous highway provisions, as follows:
Section 401 restricts the operations of tandem and other
large vehicles on U.S. 15 in the Commonwealth of Virginia from
the Maryland border to the intersection of U.S. Route 29.
Section 402 amends item 30 of section 1107(b) of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 to
allow unobligated funds provided for the I-10 West Tunnel
reconstruction project to be used for a new bridge over the
Mobile River in Alabama.
Section 403 amends item 94 of the table contained in
section 1107(b) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 pertaining to the St. Thomas, Virgin
Islands, VIPA Molasses Dock intermodal port facility.
Section 404 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to
enter into an agreement modifying the agreement entered into
pursuant to section 356 of Public Law 104-50 to provide an
additional line of credit up to $25,000,000 for construction of
Orange County toll roads.
Section 405 amends Public Law 100-202 relating to the
traffic improvement demonstration project in Petoskey,
Michigan, to extend the authorization to include the upgrade of
existing roads.
House of Representatives Report Requirements
The following items are included in accordance with various
requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives:
inflationary impact statement
Clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the House of Representatives
requires that each Committee report on a bill or resolution
shall contain a statement as to whether enactment of such bill
or resolution may have an inflationary impact on prices and
costs in the operation of the national economy.
The accompanying bill contains appropriations and other new
spending authority totaling $36,937,761,000. Of the amount
recommended, about 25 percent is for personnel and operating
costs of the various transportation bureaus and agencies.
The Committee does not believe that these personnel costs
will have a measurable impact on the aggregate rate of
inflation. Approximately two percent of the amounts recommended
in the bill will finance transportation planning and operating
costs for states, cities, and certain private organizations,
and one percent will finance various transportation research
and development activities.
The remaining 72 percent will finance transportation
construction and development projects in various parts of the
nation. The Committee believes these activities will improve
our nation's transportation system. Improved and lower cost
transportation can reduce the prices of goods by lowering the
costs of production and by improving labor productivity through
specialization. The Committee also believes that improved and
lower cost transportation provides more producers with the
opportunity to sell their products in more markets, thereby
enhancing competition and providing consumers with broader
choices and lower prices. Consequently, the level of financing
provided for transportation construction activities would have
an inflationary impact only to the extent that the benefits
resulting from lower cost transportation were offset by higher
prices resulting from insufficient capacity in the construction
industry to meet all of the demands for construction by the
public and private sectors.
rescissions
Pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule X of the House of
Representatives, the following table is submitted describing
the rescissions recommended in the accompanying bill:
Office of the Secretary, Payments to air carriers
(airport and airway trust fund)..................... -$28,600,000
Office of the Secretary, Payments to air carriers....... -1,133,000
Coast Guard, Acquisition, construction, and improvements -3,755,000
transfers of funds
Pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule X of the House of
Representatives, the following statement is submitted
describing the transfers of funds provided in the accompanying
bill.
The Committee recommends the following transfers between
accounts:
Under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
Highway Traffic Safety Grants: Provided further, That the
unobligated balances of the appropriation ``Highway-related
Safety Grants'' shall be transferred to and merged with this
``Highway Traffic Safety Grants'' appropriation.
Under section 318 of the general provisions:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any funds
appropriated before October 1, 1993, under chapter 53 of title
49 U.S.C., that remain available for expenditure may be
transferred to and administered under the most recent
appropriation heading for any such section.
Under section 326 of the general provisions: The Secretary
of Transportation is authorized to transfer funds appropriated
in this Act to ``Rental Payments'' for any expense authorized
by that appropriation in excess of the amounts provided in this
Act.
compliance with clause 3 of rule xiii
In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT OF 1991
* * * * * * *
TITLE I--SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
Part A--Title 23 Programs
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1107. INNOVATIVE PROJECTS.
(a) * * *
(b) Authorization of Projects.--The Secretary is authorized
to carry out the innovative projects described in this
subsection. Subject to subsection (c), there is authorized to
be appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than the
Mass Transit Account) for fiscal years 1992 through 1997 to
carry out each such project the amount listed for each such
project:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMOUNT in
CITY/STATE INNOVATIVE PROJECTS millions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadiz, Ohio Construction of 4-lane Limited Access Highway from Cadiz, 20.0
OH to Interstate 70 Interchange at St. Clairsville, OH
along U.S. Rt. 250.
* * * * * * *
Mobile, Alabama For reconstruction of the West Tunnel Plaza Interchange on 15.0
I-10 from Virginia Street to Mobile River Tunnel, Mobile,
Alabama and for feasibility studies, preliminary
engineering, and construction of a new bridge and
approaches over the Mobile River.
* * * * * * *
[St. Thomas,] Virgin Islands Feasibility study of constructing a second road to the 1.7
west end of the island of St. Thomas and improvements to
the VIPA Molasses Dock intermodal port facility on the
island of St. Croix to make the facility capable of
handling multiple cargo tasks.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION 5328 OF TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE
Sec. 5328. Project review
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Program of Interrelated Projects.--(1) In this
subsection, a program of interrelated projects includes the
following:
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(E) the Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation
District of Oregon [Westside] Light Rail Program,
consisting of the locally preferred alternative for the
Westside Light Rail Project, including system related
costs, contained in the Department of Transportation
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1991 (Public
Law 101-516, 104 Stat. 2155), and defined in House
Report 101-584, [and] the Hillsboro extension to the
Westside Light Rail Project contained in that Act, and
the locally preferred alternative for the South/North
Corridor Project.
* * * * * * *
----------
ACT OF DECEMBER 22, 1987
AN ACT Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year
1988, and for other purposes.
* * * * * * *
Traffic Improvement Demonstration Project
For 80 percent of the expenses necessary to carry out a
highway bypass project or upgrade existing local roads in the
vicinity of Petoskey, Michigan, that demonstrates methods of
improving economic development and regional transportation,
there is authorized to be appropriated $28,000,000, to remain
available until expended, of which $475,000 is hereby
appropriated, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That all funds appropriated under this head shall be exempt
from any limitation on obligations for Federal-aid highways and
highway safety construction programs.
* * * * * * *
Changes in Existing Law
Pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXI of the House of
Representatives, the following statements are submitted
describing the effects of provisions in the accompanying bill
which might be construed, under some circumstances, as directly
or indirectly changing the application of existing law.
The bill provides that appropriations shall remain
available for more than one year for a number of programs for
which the basic authorizing legislation does not explicitly
authorize such extended availability.
The bill includes limitations on official entertainment,
reception and representation expenses for the Secretary of
Transportation and the National Transportation Safety Board.
Similar provisions have appeared in many previous
appropriations Acts.
The bill provides for transfer of funds which might be
construed as changing the application of existing law. Similar
provisions have appeared in previous appropriations Acts. These
items are discussed under the appropriate heading in the
report.
The bill includes a number of limitations on the purchase
of automobiles, motorcycles, or office furnishings. Similar
limitations have appeared in many previous appropriations Acts.
Several limitations on obligations are contained in Title
I. Although these provisions are strict limitations, they do
have the effect of reducing obligations below the levels that
otherwise would be available.
Language is included in several instances permitting
certain funds to be credited to the appropriations recommended.
Language is included that does not permit the Department of
Transportation to maintain duplicate physical copies of airline
tariffs.
Language is included under Office of the Secretary,
``Salaries and Expenses,'' which would allow crediting the
account with up to $1,000,000 in user fees to support the
electronic tariff filings system.
Language is included that limits operating costs and
capital outlays of the Transportation Administrative Service
Center of the Department of Transportation and limits special
assessments or reimbursable agreements levied against any
program, project or activity funded in this Act to only those
assessments or reimbursable agreements that are presented to
and approved by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
Language is included under ``Payments to air carriers''
limiting the liquidating cash under the program, stipulating
that no claims may be paid except in accordance with the
limitation and provides certain criteria for distribution of
the limitation.
Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Operating
expenses'' which specifies that the number of aircraft on hand
at any one time cannot exceed two hundred and eighteen.
Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Operating
expenses'' which specifies that none of the funds appropriated
shall be available for pay or administrative expenses in
connection with shipping commissioners.
Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Operating
expenses'' that limits the use of funds for yacht documentation
to the amount of fees collected from yacht owners.
Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Operating
expenses'' that specifies that the Commandant shall reduce both
military and civilian employment levels to comply with
Executive Order No. 12839.
Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Acquisition,
construction, and improvements'' that credits funds received
from the sale of the VC-11A and HU-25 aircraft to this account
to purchase new aircraft.
Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Acquisition,
construction, and improvements'' that credits funds from the
disposal of surplus property by sale or lease to be credited to
this appropriation and allows $20 million in offsetting
collections from the sale of Coast Guard property in Wildwood,
New Jersey.
Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Research,
development, test, and evaluation'' that credits funds received
from state and local governments and other entities for
expenses incurred for research, development, testing, and
evaluation.
Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Boat Safety''
account that establishes a discretionary boat safety grant
program.
Language is included under FAA, ``Operations'' that allows
the collection of $30,000,000 in additional user fees and
allows the fees to be credited to the appropriation as
offsetting collections, and reduces the general fund
appropriation on a dollar for dollar basis as the fees are
received and credited.
Language is included under the FAA, ``Operations,''
permitting the use of funds to enter into a grant agreement
with a nonprofit standard setting organization to develop
safety standards.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation
Administration, ``Operations,'' that prohibits the use of funds
for new applicants of the second career training program.
Language is included under the FAA, ``Operations,'' that
prohibits the use of funds for premium pay unless an employee
actually performed work during the time corresponding to the
premium pay.
Language is included under the FAA, ``Facilities and
equipment,'' that allows certain funds received for expenses
incurred in the establishment and modernization of air
navigation facilities to be credited to the account
Language is included under the FAA, ``Research,
engineering, and development,'' that allows certain funds
received for expenses incurred in research, engineering and
development to be credited to the account.
Language is included prohibiting funds for aircraft loan
guarantees.
The bill includes a limitation on general operating
expenses of the Federal Highway Administration.
The bill includes language prohibiting obligations for
right-of-way acquisition.
Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, ``Operations and research'' prohibiting the
planning or implementation of any rulemaking on labeling
passenger car tires for low rolling resistance.
Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, ``Highway traffic safety grants'' limiting
obligations for certain safety grant programs.
Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration,
``Office of the administrator,'' authorizing the Secretary to
receive payments from the Union Station Redevelopment
Corporation, credit them to the appropriation charged with the
first deed of trust, and make payments on the first deed of
trust.
Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration,
``Railroad safety'' that allows reimbursement of states'
employees travel and per diem costs when directly supporting
federal railroad safety programs.
Language is included authorizing the Secretary to issue
fund anticipation notes necessary to pay obligations under
sections 511 through 513 of the Railroad Revitalization and
Regulatory Reform Act.
Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration,
``Rhode Island railroad development'' that specifies that the
federal contribution shall be matched on a dollar-for-dollar
basis and that the Providence and Worcester railroad shall
reimburse Amtrak and/or the Federal Railroad Administration up
to the first $8,000,000 in legal damages if damages occur
resulting from provision of vertical clearances in excess of
those required for present freight operations.
Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration,
``Direct loan financing program'' that provides $58,680,000 for
direct loans not to exceed $400,000,000 for the Alameda
corridor under section 505 of the Railroad Revitalization and
Regulatory Reform Act of 1976; provides that such loans shall
not exceed certain amounts specified for fiscal years 1997
through 1999; provides that such loans be structured with a
maximum 30-year repayment after completion of construction at
an annual rate of not to exceed the 30-year U.S. Treasury rate;
waives section 505(a) (b) and (d); and deems the Alameda
Corridor Transportation Authority as a financially responsible
person.
Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration,
``Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation,'' that
prohibits capital improvement funds until July 1, 1997.
Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration,
``Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation,''
regarding the use of funds for lease or purchase of passenger
motor vehicles.
Language is included under Federal Transit Administration,
``Formula grants,'' limiting mass transit operating assistance.
Language is included under Federal Transit Administration,
``Discretionary grants,'' reprogramming funds previously
provided for projects specified in this Act.
Language is included under Federal Transit Administration,
``Discretionary grants,'' specifying the distribution of funds
for new fixed guideway systems in this Act.
Language is included under the Federal Transit
Administration, ``Discretionary grants,'' allowing Salt Lake
City light rail transit project funds to be used for high
occupancy vehicle lane and corridor design costs.
Language is included under Research and Special Programs
Administration, ``Research and special programs,'' which would
allow up to $1,200,000 in fees collected under 49 U.S.C.
5108(g) to be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as
offsetting receipts.
Language is included under Research and Special Programs
Administration, ``Research and special programs,'' that credits
certain funds received for expenses incurred for training and
other activities.
Language is included under Research and Special Programs
Administration, ``Pipeline safety'' that allows up to
$1,000,000 for one-call notification systems to be funded from
amounts previously collected and held in a reserve account.
Language is included under Research and Special Programs
Administration, ``Emergency preparedness grants,'' specifying
the Secretary of Transportation or his designee may obligate
funds provided under this head.
Language is included under Office of Inspector General,
``Salaries and expenses'' prohibiting funds for the conduct of
contract audits.
Language is included under Surface Transportation Board,
``Salaries and expenses'' allowing the collection of $3,000,000
in fees and providing that fees collected in excess of
$3,000,000 shall not be available until October 1, 1997.
Language is included under ``Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, ``Salaries and
expenses,'' that provides that funds received for publications
and training may be credited to the appropriation.
Language is included in several instances rescinding budget
authority previously provided.
Section 301 through 337 of the bill contains a number of
general provisions that place limitations or funding
prohibitions on the use of funds in the bill and which might,
under some circumstances, be construed as changing the
application of existing law.
Sections 301 through 337 of the bill contain a number of
general provisions that allow for the redistribution of
previously appropriated funds.
The bill includes language regarding the administration of
the federal-aid highway obligation limitation.
Section 314 allows airports to transfer to the Federal
Aviation Administration instrument landing systems which
conform with FAA specifications and the purchase of such
equipment was assisted by a federal airport aid program.
Section 321 reduced funding for activities of the
transportation administrative service center of the Department
of Transportation and limits obligational authority of the
center to $114,812,000.
Section 323 prohibits funds to be used to prepare, propose,
or promulgate any rule under title V of the Motor Vehicle
Information and Cost Savings Act prescribing corporate average
fuel economy standards for automobiles.
Section 324 prohibits funds for the sixth runway at the new
Denver International Airport unless the Administrator or the
Federal Aviation Administration determines, in writing, that
safety conditions warrant obligation of such funds.
Section 326 allows the Secretary to transfer from other
office of the secretary accounts for rental payments in excess
of the amounts provided in the bill.
Section 327 prohibits funds for any type of training which:
(a) is personally offensive to students; (b) discusses or
teaches religious concepts or ideas; (c) attempts to teach or
modify one's personal values or lifestyle; (d) is for AIDS
awareness training, except for raising awareness of medical
ramifications of AIDS and workplace rights of employees; or (e)
does not meet needs for knowledge, skills, and abilities
bearing directly on the performance of official duties.
Section 329 requires Federal Transit Administration
oversight of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
to be based in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area.
Section 332 allows the Secretary of Transportation to
exempt any class of vehicle deemed appropriate under 49 CFR
part 580.6.
Also, the bill includes several new or modified provisions
that could be construed as changing existing law as follows:
Section 321 reduced funding for activities of the
transportation administrative service center of the Department
of Transportation and limits obligational authority of the
center to $114,812,000.
Section 325 allows funds received by the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics from the sale of data products be
credited to the Federal-aid highways account for the purpose of
reimbursing the Bureau for such expenses and provides
$3,100,000 in user fees for the aviation statistics program.
Section 337 allows funds provided under section 3035(kk) of
Public Law 102-240 to the State of Michigan for the purchase of
buses and bus-related equipment and facilities.
Section 339 enacts section 423 of H.R. 1361, as passed the
House of Representatives on May 9, 1995, in regards to the
conveyance of Light Station Montauk Point, located in Montauk,
New York.
The bill also includes a new title IV, ``Miscellaneous
Highway Provisions'', that amends the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991; restricts the operations
of tandem and other large vehicles in Virginia; authorizes the
Secretary of Transportation to provide an additional line of
credit for construction of Orange County toll roads; and
extends the authorization relating to the traffic improvement
demonstration project.
Appropriations Not Authorized by Law
Pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXI of the House of
Representatives, the following lists the appropriations in the
accompanying bill which are not authorized by law:
United States Coast Guard
Federal Aviation Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Operations
and Research
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Highway
traffic safety grants
Federal Railroad Administration (except office of the
administrator and rail safety)
Research and Special Programs Administration, Pipeline Safety
Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Aviation Statistics
National Civil Aviation Review Commission
Comparison With Budget Resolution
Section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as
amended, requires that the report accompanying a bill providing
new budget authority contain a statement detailing how the new
authority compares with the reports submitted under section
602(b) of the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent
resolution on the budget for the fiscal year. This information
follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
602(b) allocation This bill
---------------------------------------------------
Budget Budget
authority Outlays authority Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary............................................... $12,190 $35,453 $11,852 $35,453
Mandatory................................................... 605 602 608 602
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill provides new spending authority as defined under
section 401(c)(2) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as amended, as
follows: Under Federal Railroad Administration, Railroad
rehabilitation and improvement financing funds, authority is
provided to issue notes necessary to pay obligations under
section 511 through 513 of the Railroad Revitalization and
Regulatory Reform Act. This provision has been included at the
request of the administration because the government's
financial obligations under this program are difficult to
determine in advance and may require immediate expenditures of
funds. The Committee has received no indication to date that
this authority will be used in fiscal year 1995. Similar
provisions have been included in many previous appropriations
Acts.
Five-Year Outlay Projects
In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as
amended, the following information was provided to the
Committee by the Congressional Budget Office:
Budget authority.................................... $12,460,000,000
Outlays:
1997............................................ 12,270,000,000
1998............................................ 12,970,000,000
1999............................................ 5,928,000,000
2000............................................ 2,105,000,000
2001............................................ 1,525,000,000
Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments
In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(D) of Public Law 93-
344, the Congressional Budget Office has provided the following
estimates of new budget authority and outlays provided by the
accompanying bill for financial assistance to state and local
governments:
Budget authority........................................ $737,000,000
Fiscal year 1997 outlays................................ 3,729,000,000
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
RAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
|
|
