House Report 107-722 - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2003

[House Report 107-722]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

107th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 107-722
======================================================================

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL,
2003

_______

October 7, 2002.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______

Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted
the following

R E P O R T

together with

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

[To accompany H.R. 5559]

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, 2003.

INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT

_______________________________________________________________________

Page number

Bill Report
Narrative summary of Committee action......................
2
Program, project, and activity.............................
3
Title I--Department of Transportation:
Office of the Secretary............................ 2
5
Transportation Security Administration............. 5
16
Coast Guard........................................ 7
30
Federal Aviation Administration.................... 12
42
Federal Highway Administration..................... 17
77
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration........ 19
103
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration..... 21
108
Federal Railroad Administration.................... 23
117
Federal Transit Administration..................... 26
129
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation...... 35
178
Research and Special Programs Administration....... 36
180
Office of Inspector General........................ 37
185
Surface Transportation Board....................... 38
187
Title II--Related Agencies:
Architectural and Transportation Barriers
Compliance Board............................... 39
188
National Transportation Safety Board............... 39
189
Title III--General Provisions.............................. 40
190
House Report Requirements:
Appropriations not authorized by law...............
208
Changes in existing law............................
202
Comparison with budget resolution..................
208
Constitutional authority...........................
192
Financial assistance to state and local governments
209
Five-year projections of outlays...................
209
Ramseyer...........................................
194
Rescissions........................................
209
Transfers of funds.................................
193
Tabular summary of the bill................................
212

Summary and Major Recommendations of the Bill

The accompanying bill would provide $21,746,930,000 in new
budget (obligational) authority for the programs of the
Department of Transportation and related agencies, $379,750,000
less than the $22,126,680,000 requested in the budget. Selected
major recommendations in the accompanying bill are:
(1) An appropriation of $13,599,225,000 for the
Federal Aviation Administration, consistent with
provisions of AIR-21;
(2) A limitation of $3,400,000,000 for grants-in-aid
for airports, as required by provisions of AIR-21;
(3) An appropriation of $4,305,456,000 for operating
expenses of the Coast Guard;
(4) An appropriation of $762,476,000 for grants to
the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak),
to cover capital and operating expenses;
(5) An appropriation of $5,146,000,000 for capital
and operating costs of the Transportation Security
Administration;
(6) A total of $181,031,000 for the office of the
secretary, including $25,000,000 for acquisition of a
new DOT headquarters building;
(7) Highway program obligation limitations of
$27,653,143,000, consistent with provisions of TEA-21
and other existing legislation;
(8) Transit program obligations of $7,226,000,000,
consistent with provisions of TEA-21; and
(9) A total of $367,411,000 for the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration, including $190,000,000
for the national motor carrier safety program.

The Effect of Guaranteed Spending

Over the objections of the Appropriations and Budget
Committees, in 1998 the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA-21) amended the Budget Enforcement Act to provide
two new additional spending categories or ``firewalls'', the
highway category and the mass transit category. In March 2000,
the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the
21st Century (AIR-21) provided a similar treatment for certain
aviation programs. Although using different procedures, each of
these Acts produced the same results: they significantly raised
spending, and they effectively prohibited the Appropriations
Committee from reducing those spending levels in the annual
appropriations process. As the Committee noted during
deliberations on these bills, the Acts essentially created
mandatory spending programs within the discretionary caps. This
undermines Congressional flexibility to fund other equally
important programs, including non-guaranteed transportation
programs such as FAA Operations, the Coast Guard, the
Transportation Security Administration and Amtrak. As a result
of these Acts, the majority of budgetary resources addressed by
this bill are either ``guaranteed'' by federal legislation and/
or protected by unprecedented points of order passed into law
at the initiative of the authorization committees.
The Committee will continue to do all it can in this
environment to produce a balanced bill which provides
adequately for all modes of transportation. However, clearly
the use of spending guarantees to ``wall-off'' parts of the
discretionary budget for particular constituencies cause both
transportation and non-transportation programs all across the
government to be under more severe budget pressure, in order to
keep the overall budget in balance. The effect of the
guarantees will especially leave its mark on non-covered
transportation programs and activities, since they must compete
within this bill for leftover funding. The Committee continues
to be concerned that bills such as TEA-21 and AIR-21 skew
transportation priorities inappropriately, by providing a
banquet of increases to highway, transit, and airport spending
while leaving safety- and security-related operations in the
FAA, Coast Guard, Transportation Security Administration, and
FRA to scramble for the remaining crumbs.

Tabular Summary

A table summarizing the amounts provided for fiscal year
2002 and the amounts recommended in the bill for fiscal year
2003 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 2003. These hearings are contained in eight
published volumes. 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 2003 have been
developed after careful consideration of all the information
available to the Committee.

Program, Project, and Activity

During fiscal year 2003, 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 capital investment 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.

Accrual Funding of Retirement Costs and Post-Retirement Health Benefits

The President's Budget included a legislative proposal
under the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Government
Reform to charge to individual agencies, starting in fiscal
year 2003, the fully accrued costs related to retirement
benefits of Civil Service Retirement System employees and
retiree health benefits for all civilian employees. The Budget
also requested an additional dollar amount in each affected
discretionary account to cover these accrued costs.
Without passing judgment on the merits of this legislative
proposal, the Committee has reduced the dollar amounts of the
President's request shown in the ``Comparative Statement of New
Budget Authority'' and other tables in this report to exclude
the accrual funding proposal. The disposition by Congress of
the legislative proposal is unclear at this time. Should the
proposal be passed by Congress and enacted, the Committee will
make appropriate adjustments to the President's request to
include accrual amounts.
The Committee further notes that administration proposals
requiring legislative action by the authorizing committees of
Congress are customarily submitted in the budget as separate
schedules apart from the regular appropriations requests.
Should such a proposal be enacted, a budget amendment formally
modifying the President's appropriation request for
discretionary funding is then transmitted to the Congress.
The Committee is concerned that this practice, which has
always worked effectively for both Congress and past
administrations, was not followed for the accrual funding
proposal. In this case, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) decided to include accrual amounts in the original
discretionary appropriations language request. These amounts
are based on legislation that has yet to be considered and
approved by the appropriate committees of Congress. This led to
numerous misunderstandings inside Congress of what was the
``true'' President's budget request. The Committee believes
that in the future, OMB should follow long-established
procedures with respect to discretionary spending proposals
that require legislative action.

Cross-Charging of Costs for the Federal Employees' Compensation Act
Program

Currently, one of the statutory missions of the Department
of Labor (DOL) is to oversee and administer the Federal
Employees' Compensation Act (FECA), which provides workers'
compensation benefits to eligible federal employees. DOL
currently pays benefits from the Special Benefits fund and
administrative costs from the agency's discretionary budget.
Benefits are billed back to agencies, while administrative
costs are not. The President's budget for fiscal year 2003
would allow DOL to add an administrative surcharge to the
amount billed to agencies for FECA benefits, on the assumption
that it would give agencies a greater incentive to monitor and
reduce FECA benefit costs, and that it better reflects the cost
of government programs on an agency-by-agency basis.
The Committee rejects this proposal and has eliminated, in
each account, amounts totaling $5,642,100 for these
administrative surcharges. Such charges will not lead to
greater government efficiency. On the contrary, DOL employees
will have little incentive to become more efficient if they can
simply bill other agencies for their inefficiencies. Agencies
currently view FECA benefit charges as a mandatory expense, and
they will view the administrative surcharge as mandatory as
well. With this change, DOL would avoid budgetary competition
within its own budget function, and transfer that pressure to
other parts of the government. The Committee believes that if
all agencies were to begin cross-charging others for the costs
of performing its own statutory duties, a balkanization of the
budget process would result. For example, the FAA could easily
charge other agencies each time a government aircraft flies
though airspace controlled by the agency. While this might ease
the burden on FAA's discretionary budget, it would provide the
wrong incentives for good management and efficiency in the
federal system as a whole, and undermine oversight of spending
at the FAA. This cross-charging practice has not been
authorized by the Congress, and the Committee encourages the
legislative committees to review any such proposal with the
utmost scrutiny.

TITLE I

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Salaries and Expenses

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002....................... $67,778,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003 \1\.................. 92,460,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 82,474,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002................... +14,696,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003.................. -9,986,000

\1\ Excludes $3,640,000 in CSRS/FEHB accruals.

The bill provides a total of $82,474,000 for the salaries
and expenses of the various offices comprising the Office of
the Secretary. The following table summarizes the fiscal year
2002 program levels, the fiscal year 2003 program requests and
the Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 Fiscal year 2003
Program enacted request \3\ Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate office of the Secretary \1\............... $1,929,000 .................. ..................
Immediate office of the Deputy Secretary \1\........ 619,000 .................. ..................
Executive Secretariat\1\............................ 1,204,000 .................. ..................
Immediate office of the Secretary and Deputy .................. $4,410,000 $4,355,000
Secretary..........................................
Office of General Counsel........................... 13,355,000 15,657,000 14,950,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy \2\.... 3,058,000 .................. ..................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and 7,421,000 .................. ..................
International Affairs \2\..........................
Office of the Under Secretary for Transportation .................. 12,452,000 12,024,000
Policy.............................................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and 7,728,000 8,375,000 7,415,000
Programs...........................................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental 2,282,000 2,453,000 2,453,000
Affairs............................................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration 19,250,000 29,285,000 27,686,000
Office of Public Affairs............................ 1,723,000 1,926,000 1,926,000
Board of Contract Appeals........................... 507,000 611,000 611,000
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Businesses........ 1,240,000 1,304,000 1,304,000
Office of Intelligence and Security................. 1,321,000 .................. ..................
Office of the Chief Information Officer............. 6,141,000 15,987,000 9,750,000
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total......................................... 67,778,000 92,460,000 82,474,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In fiscal year 2003, the budget proposed merging the Office of the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and
Executive Secretariat into one office titled ``Immediate Office of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary''.
\2\ In fiscal year 2003, the budget proposed merging the Assistant Secretary for Aviation with the Assistant
Secretary for Policy and the Office of Intermodalism into one office titled ``Under Secretary for
Transportation Policy.''
\3\ Excludes $3,640,000 for CSRS/FEHB accruals.

The Committee has approved the consolidation of the Offices
of the Secretary, Deputy Secretary and the Executive
Secretariat into a new immediate office of the Secretary and
Deputy Secretary. In approving this merger, the Secretary and
Deputy Secretary should be cautious not to transfer funds
previously allocated to the Executive Secretariat for their own
needs without consultation with the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations. Also, the proposed merger of the offices of
the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs,
Assistant Secretary for Policy and the Office of Intermodalism
into a new office of the Under Secretary for Transportation
Policy has been approved.
The Committee has made the following adjustments to the
budget request:

Reduce increase for travel in the immediate office of
Secretary and Deputy Secretary...................... -$55,000
Reduce personnel, compensation, and benefits increases.. -2,571,000
Reduce travel increase for Under Secretary for
Transportation Policy............................... -50,000
Reduce increase in contract expenses for Under Secretary
for Transportation Policy........................... -48,000
Deny two new staff positions in the Chief Information
Office.............................................. -112,000
Reduce request for information technology............... -2,350,000
Reduce funding requested for enterprise architecture.... -1,380,000
Reduce increase requested for capital planning.......... -1,770,000
Reduce funding requested for e-government............... -625,000
Deny increase requested for ``accessibility for all
America''........................................... -553,000
Deny FECA administrative costs.......................... -22,000
Deny funding for video teleconferencing system (SVTS)... -450,000

Travel increases.--The Committee has reduced two requested
increases for travel, one within the immediate Office of the
Secretary and Deputy Secretary (-$55,000) and one within the
office for the Under Secretary for Transportation Policy
(-$50,000). Both of these offices have received significant
increases for travel funds in the past and will still receive a
substantial increase in travel funding in fiscal year 2003.
These slight reductions should have no negative impact on their
operations.
Personnel, compensation, and benefits.--The Committee has
decreased funding requested for personnel, compensation, and
benefits by $2,571,000. Funding reductions were made to four
offices: Administration (-$1,127,000), Budget (-$960,000),
General Counsel (-$154,000), and Policy (-$330,000). These
reductions were made to requested increases in personnel,
compensation, and benefits because of high levels of vacancies
in each of these offices. For example, as of the end of July
the Assistant Secretary for Budget was 25 percent below
authorized staffing levels and the Assistant Secretary for
Administration was 17.5 percent below authorized staffing
levels.
Contract expenses.--A slight reduction was made to the
Under Secretary for Transportation Policy's contract expenses
because the requested increase was inadequately justified
(-$48,000).
New staff positions.--The Committee has denied two of the
four new staff positions requested by the Chief Information
Office, to reflect other reductions made to programs within
this office.
Information technology.--In total, the Committee has
reduced funding requested for a variety of information
technology programs including information technology security,
enterprise architecture, capital planning, and e-government
(-$6,125,000). The budget request did not provide sufficient
justification for the requested increase of $10,000,000 in
fiscal year 2003 for information technology activities.
FECA administrative costs.--Consistent with actions taken
across all DOT modal administrations funded in this bill, the
Committee has denied funding for FECA administrative costs.
Video teleconferencing.--The Committee has deferred
consideration of requests for secure video teleconferencing
equipment until the issues surrounding creation of the new
Department of Homeland Security are resolved.
Office of Intelligence and Security.--The budget request
did not include any funding for the Office of Intelligence and
Security because it had been transferred to the Transportation
Security Administration. However, if TSA is transferred to the
new Department of Homeland Security, the Secretary of
Transportation should make arrangements to have one staff
detailed to him from this new agency so that he remains
informed on intelligence and security issues pertaining to
transportation.
Congressional budget justifications.--The Committee again
directs the department to submit all of the department's fiscal
year Congressional budget justifications on the first Monday in
February, concurrent with official submission of the
President's budget to Congress. Also, the department is
directed to submit its fiscal year 2004 Congressional
justification materials for the salaries and expenses of the
Office of the Secretary at the same level of detail provided in
the Congressional justifications presented in fiscal year 2003.
Report distribution.--The Committee is extremely
disconcerted with the unprecedented actions the department took
with the report on FHWA's streamlining efforts due January 2,
2002. The report was delivered on the evening before FHWA was
to testify. Without prior notice or approval, the Department
violated the standard practice in place for many years, and not
only attached the report to testimony delivered to the House
Appropriations Committee for public dissemination, but also
widely distributed the report to other Congressional Committees
and to the press. Although the report was requested
specifically by the House Committee on Appropriations, members
of the Committee had no opportunity to read the report before
mass distribution to the public. The Committee strongly
recommends the department confer with the Committee and adopt
written procedures for report distribution similar to the
standards in place and followed before February 28, 2002. In
addition, the Committee directs the department to refrain from
attaching miscellaneous documents, including reports, to
Congressional testimony without prior consultation.
Bill language.--Language prohibiting funding for the
Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs position has been
retained from last year. Also, the bill continues language that
permits up to $2,500,000 of fees to be credited to the Office
of the Secretary for salaries and expenses. Similar language
has been carried in past years.

General Provisions

Limitation on political and Presidential appointees.--The
Committee has included a provision in the bill (sec. 304),
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 2003 is 107
personnel, which is the five more than approved in fiscal year
2002. While the Department had requested 116 positions,
currently there are 18 political vacancies. With such a high
level of vacancies, the Committee cannot support such a large
increase. Also, language is retained prohibiting any political
or Presidential appointee from being detailed outside the
Department of Transportation or any other agency funded in this
bill.
Funds received by the departments.--The Committee has
denied bill language pertaining to the use of rebates, refunds,
incentive payments, fees and other funds received by the
department. Significant violations have occurred in the use of
these funds. Specifically, the Inspector General recently found
that the DOT spent about $37,000,000 obtained from the U.S.
Treasury ``miscellaneous receipts'' accounts between fiscal
years 1998 and 2001 to finance four projects involving office
space renovation, purchasing new systems furniture, and
developing new DOT financial systems, rather than using funds
appropriated to DOT for such purposes. By law, DOT collections
were required to be returned to the Treasury. DOT did not have
the authority to retain and spend this money. Yet, the former
Deputy Chief Financial Officer authorized accounting staff to
move money from selected Treasury accounts each year
immediately before Treasury would have transferred the money
into the General Fund. In addition to not having the authority
to spend Treasury's money, DOT also obligated $21,000,000 of
the $37,000,000 to authorize and create new obligations after
the funds had legally expired for obligation. None of the
Treasury money was credited to DOT appropriations nor was it
allocated to elements of the department as required by
legislation, and none of the expenses were charged against
amounts appropriated to DOT. The Inspector General referred
these violations to the DOT General Counsel, who concluded that
the amount withdrawn from Treasury's miscellaneous receipts
accounts must now be repaid. Unless unobligated balances
sufficient to repay the $37,000,000 are now available in
expired appropriations accounts and those accounts could
properly have been charged for the costs at the time they were
incurred, the reports required by the Anti-deficiency Act must
be transmitted to the President and the Congress. The Committee
understands that the department is working to resolve these
problems by December 2002. Because of these significant
violations of federal law, the Committee will not continue the
general provision until evidence is received that these serious
problems have all been corrected, officials have been held
accountable, and monitoring systems are in place to prevent
recidivism.

Office of Civil Rights

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002....................... $8,500,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003 \1\.................. 8,700,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 8,500,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002................... ................
Budget request, fiscal year 2003.................. -200,000
\1\ Excludes $470,000 for CSRS/FEHB accruals.

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 opportunity
precepts in all of the department's official actions and
programs. This office is responsible for enforcing laws and
regulations that prohibit discrimination in federally operated
and federally assisted transportation programs. This office
also handles all civil rights cases related to Department of
Transportation employees. The recommendation provides a total
of $8,500,000 for the office of civil rights, which is the same
level as enacted in the fiscal year 2002.

Transportation Planning, Research, and Development

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002....................... $11,993,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003 \1\.................. 10,700,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 11,157,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002................... -836,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003.................. +457,000
\1\ Excludes $135,000 for CSRS/FEHB accruals.

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. It also
finances the staff necessary to conduct these efforts. The
overall program is carried out primarily through contracts with
other federal agencies, educational institutions, nonprofit
research organizations, and private firms.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $11,157,000
for transportation planning, research and development, which is
$457,000 more than the budget request. The following
adjustments were made to the request:

Staffing reductions..................................... -$1,043,000
Texas Transportation Institute.......................... +1,500,000

Staffing reductions.--The Committee reduced the requested
increases in personnel, compensation, and benefits because of
an extremely high level of vacancies in this office
(-$1,043,000). As of July, 2002, staffing in the transportation
planning, research, and development office was 37.5 percent
below authorized staffing levels.
Texas Transportation Institute.--The Committee has provided
$1,500,000 to work on a regional mobility and safety study for
the greater Houston area in Texas.

Transportation Administrative Service Center

Limitation, fiscal year 2002........................ \1\ ($126,123,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2003 \2\................ (131,779,000)
Recommended in the bill............................. (131,766,000)
Bill compared with:
Limitation, fiscal year 2002.................... (+5,643,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2003................ (-13,000)
\1\ Includes funding in the 2002 supplemental. Does not reflect
reduction of $5,000,000 pursuant to section 349 of Public Law 107-87
or reduction of $4,300,000 pursuant to section 1106 of Public Law 107-
117.
\2\ Proposed without limitation. Includes Department of Transportation
only.

The transportation administrative service center (TASC) was
created in fiscal year 1997 to provide common administrative
services to the various modes and outside entities that desire
those services for economy and efficiency. The fund is financed
through negotiated agreements with the department's operating
administrations and other governmental elements requiring the
center's capabilities.
The Committee agreed to create the transportation
administrative service center in fiscal year 1997 at the
department's request. In agreeing to that request, the
Committee limited (1) the activities that can be transferred to
the transportation administrative service center to only those
approved by the agency administrator and (2) special
assessments or reimbursable agreements levied against any
program, project or activity funded in this Act to only those
assessments or reimbursable agreements where the agreements and
the basis for them are presented to and approved by the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations. These limitations are
continued in fiscal year 2003.
The Committee recommends a limitation of $131,766,000 on
funding through the transportation administrative service
center. A slight reduction (-$13,000) has been made to account
for the denial of FECA accruals in this limitation.
The Committee believes that a limitation is necessary in
this account because, in the past, TASC has attempted to pass
on assessments to modal administrations without justification
or has charged modal administrations for activities that have
not been approved by Congress.
Modal usage of TASC.--Consistent with last year's practice,
the Committee directs the department, in its fiscal year 2004
Congressional justifications for each of the modal
administrations, to account for increases or decreases in TASC
billings based on planned usage requested or anticipated by the
modes rather than anticipated by the TASC.

Minority Business Resource Center Program

Limitation on
Appropriation guaranteed loans

Apropriation, fiscal year 2002. $900,000 $18,367,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003 900,000 18,367,000
Recommended in the bill......... 900,000 18,367,000
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year .................. ..................
2002...........................
Budget request, fiscal year .................. ..................
2003...........................

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. In fiscal year
2001, the short-term lending program was converted from a
direct loan program to a guaranteed loan program.
The recommendation fully funds the budget request of
$500,000 to cover the subsidy costs for the loans, not to
exceed $18,367,000, and $400,000 for administrative expenses to
carry out the guaranteed loan program.

Minority Business Outreach

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002....................... $3,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003...................... 3,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 3,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002................... ................
Budget request, fiscal year 2003.................. ................

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 serves DOT-wide goals. The Committee
has provided $3,000,000, the same level as provided in fiscal
year 2002 and the same level as requested in the budget.

New Headquarters Building

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002....................... ................
Budget request, fiscal year 2003...................... $25,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 25,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002................... +25,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003.................. ................
In 1997, Congress authorized the General Services
Administration to acquire space to consolidate the housing
needs of the Department of Transportation. This new
appropriation finances the fiscal year 2003 costs for the new
headquarters building, which will consolidate all of DOT's
headquarters operating administration functions (except FAA,
TSA, and the Coast Guard), from various locations into a state-
of-the-art efficient building in the District of Columbia. The
DOT's current headquarters facility is more than 30 years old
and many of its building systems are well beyond their useful
life. For example, the building has an unsecured perimeter, no
blast protection, an inefficient interior layout, and was
diagnosed in the past as a ``sick building''. Prior to deciding
to move to a new facility, DOT considered rehabilitating the
current site; however, the contractor withdrew this option from
evaluation.
The budget requested $25,000,000 for tenant build out
requirements for the new building, assuming the DOT would lease
the facility. Additional funding would be required to complete
tenant finishes. The Administration assumed that DOT would
begin occupying the new building by late 2005 or early 2006.
The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for a new DOT headquarters
building.

Payments to Air Carriers

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002\1\.................... \2\ $63,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003\3\................... ................
Recommended in the bill............................... 50,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002................... -13,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003.................. +50,000,000

\1\ The Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 1996
permanently appropriated $50,000,000 of overflight fees for the
Essential Air Service program. To the extent fees fall below the
$50,000,000, current law requires the difference to be covered by
Federal Aviation Administration funds.
\2\ In addition to the $50,000,000 permanently appropriated to this
program, Congress provided $13,000,000 in P.L. 107-87 and $50,000,000
in the Emergency Supplemental Act of 2002.
\3\ The budget assumes $113,000,000 for the essential air service
program: the collection of $30,000,000 in overflight fees and the
balance of $83,000,000 to be paid from the FAA Airport Improvement
Program.

The payments to air carriers, or essential air service
(EAS) program, was originally 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 $14 to $496 per
passenger, currently support air service to 81 communities and
serve about 700,000 passengers annually.
The Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of
1996 (Public Law 104-264) authorized the collection of user
fees for services provided by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) to aircraft that neither take off from,
nor land in the United States, commonly known as overflight
fees. In addition, the Act permanently appropriated these fees
for authorized expenses of the FAA and stipulated that the
first $50,000,000 of annual fee collections must be used to
finance the EAS program. In the event of a shortfall in fees,
the law requires FAA to make up the difference from other funds
available to the agency.
Over the years, Congress and the department have worked to
streamline the essential air service program and to increase
its efficiency by eliminating communities that are within an
easy drive of a major hub airport or where the costs clearly
outweigh the benefits. Federal law now limits the number of
communities that receive essential air service funding by
excluding points in the 48 contiguous United States that are
located fewer than seventy highway miles from the nearest large
or medium hub airport, or that require a subsidy in excess of
$200 per passenger, unless such point is more than 210 miles
from the nearest large or medium airport.
For fiscal year 2003, the budget requested several changes
in the EAS program. First, the budget request assumed the
collection of $30,000,000 in overflight fees instead of the
$50,000,000 assumed in law. Second, the budget requested that
the remainder of the program ($83,000,000) be funded from the
Airport Improvement Program. Third, the budget included a
general provision that capped the per passenger subsidy at
$275, with the exception of service to communities in Alaska.
Fourth, the budget requested language permitting the Secretary
to take whatever actions are necessary to keep the fiscal year
2003 program within the proposed funding level of $113,000,000.
The Committee recommends a total program level for EAS in
fiscal year 2003 of $100,000,000. This funding consists of an
appropriation of $50,000,000 and $50,000,000 from overflight
user fees or other funds available to the Federal Aviation
Administration. If overflight fees are less than $50,000,000,
FAA is expected to use funds available under the facilities and
equipment account to make up this shortfall. The Committee does
not support funding the EAS program from airport improvement
program grants, as requested. With the increased security costs
all airports are incurring following the terrorist acts of
September 11, 2001, it is unfair to ask that this program also
fund any shortfalls in the essential air service program.
Similarly, the Committee has rejected both requests for bill
language changes. Any significant changes to the core program
should be considered as part of the broader aviation
reauthorization that will occur next year. The Committee notes
that, while the EAS funding is below the requested level, there
is $13,000,000 to $16,000,000 in funds appropriated during
fiscal year 2002 that will carry over into fiscal year 2003.
When these funds are taken into consideration, the program will
have the same funding level as assumed in the budget request.
The General Accounting Office recently released a report on
options to enhance the long-term viability of the essential air
service program. In summary, the report found that over the
past several years, the EAS program has grown exponentially.
The annual program costs have tripled, from $37,000,000 in 1995
to $113,000,000 in 2002 and the average subsidy per continental
U.S. community served has increased from $424,000 to $838,000
over the same time period. Yet, passenger traffic at EAS-
subsidized communities decreased by 20 percent since 1995.
Also, the median daily passengers enplaned per community has
declined to an estimated 10 per day, just over 3 passengers per
flight, as more low cost carriers operate in adjacent
communities and passengers choose other modes of transportation
because of the high prices to fly in and out of EAS airports.
GAO identified four options to enhance the long-term viability
of the EAS program. These options include targeting subsidized
service to more remote communities; better matching capacity
with community use; consolidating service to multiple
communities into regional airports; and changing carrier
subsidies into local grants. Because of the serious
affordability challenges facing this program, the Committee
believes these options and their impacts require a serious
review. Accordingly the Committee strongly encourages the
department to review each option and develop a plan to
restructure the EAS program as part of aviation reauthorization
next year.
The following table reflects the points currently receiving
services and the annual subsidy rates in the continental United
States and Hawaii:

EAS SUBSIDY RATES AS OF JULY 1, 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average daily
enplanements Total
at EAS point Annual subsidy Subsidy per passengers
States/communities (year ending rates (July 1, passenger (year ending
September 30, 2002) September 30,
2001) 2001)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA
Muscle Shoals............................... 22.5 $1,073,257 $76.05 14,113
ARIZONA
Kingman..................................... 5.1 541,502 170.87 3,169
Page........................................ (\1\) 1,251,977 .............. ..............
Prescott.................................... 14.0 541,502 61.80 8,762
Show Low.................................... (\1\) 410,080 .............. ..............
ARKANSAS
El Dorado/Camden............................ 4.1 1,018,681 392.25 2,597
Harrison.................................... 8.6 1,121,411 207.28 5,410
Hot Springs................................. 8.4 1,121,411 213.97 5,241
Jonesboro................................... 7.7 1,018,681 210.82 4,832
CALIFORNIA
Crescent City............................... 43.5 333,717 12.27 27,205
Merced...................................... 13.3 1,031,224 123.81 8,329
COLORADO
Alamosa..................................... 14.7 925,045 100.29 9,224
Cortez...................................... 28.8 403,311 22.35 18,044
Pueblo...................................... 8.8 527,185 95.83 5,501
HAWAII
Hana........................................ 12.2 746,752 97.96 7,623
Kamuela..................................... 6.0 594,751 157.76 3,770
Kalaupapa................................... 5.2 386,624 118.27 3,269
ILLINOIS
Decator..................................... 36.0 487,050 21.60 22,546
Marion/Herrin............................... 36.1 794,031 35.11 22,618
IOWA
Burlington.................................. 39.2 929,082 37.85 24,547
Fort Dodge.................................. .............. (\2\) .............. ..............
Mason City.................................. .............. (\2\) .............. ..............
KANSAS
Dodge City.................................. 13.5 1,159,886 137.39 8,442
Garden City................................. 32.2 1,159,886 57.59 20,141
Great Bend.................................. 3.9 298,799 121.66 2,456
Hays........................................ 24.8 1,330,824 85.62 15,543
Liberal/Guymon.............................. 10.5 824,776 125.73 6,560
Salena...................................... .............. (\2\) .............. ..............
Topeka...................................... 6.2 621,872 161.07 3,861
KENTUCKY
Owensboro................................... 21.5 888,863 66.03 13,461
MAINE
Augusta/Waterville.......................... 13.7 1,205,855 140.26 8,597
Bar Harbor.................................. 40.8 1,205,855 47.21 25,545
Presque Isle................................ 59.6 1,480,512 39.71 37,284
Rockland.................................... 23.4 1,205.855 82.48 14,620
MICHIGAN
Iron/Ashland................................ 6.5 544,269 134.49 4,047
Iron Mountain/Kingsford..................... 28.6 1,614,863 90.05 17,933
Manistee.................................... 4.4 542,168 197.15 2,750
MINNESOTA
Thief River Falls........................... .............. (\2\) .............. ..............
MISSISSIPPI
Laurel/Hattiesburg.......................... 39.1 1,056,991 43.17 24,485
MISSOURI
Cape Girardeau.............................. 22.3 430,925 30.87 13,958
Fort Leonard Wood........................... 27.1 573,725 33.79 16,979
Kirksville.................................. 6.3 732,363 186.59 3,925
MONTANA
Glasgow..................................... 7.0 707,462 160.60 4,405
Glendive.................................... 3.1 707,462 367.13 1,927
Havre....................................... 3.7 707,462 308.13 2.296
Lewistown................................... 2.8 707,462 398.35 1,776
Miles City.................................. 3.9 707,462 291.38 2,428
Sidney...................................... 8.6 707,462 131.89 5,364
Wolf Point.................................. 5.8 707,462 193.35 2,650
NEBRASKA
Alliance.................................... 2.8 971,920 556.97 1,745
Chadron..................................... 5.1 971,920 303.06 3,207
Kearney..................................... 25.0 839,487 53.71 15,629
McCook...................................... 7.6 1,325,289 279.48 5,472
Norfolk..................................... 4.8 751,373 248.39 3,025
North Platte................................ 24.1 751,373 49.91 15,056
NEVADA
Ely......................................... (\1\) 976,533 .............. ..............
NEW MEXICO
Alamogordo/Holloman......................... 6.2 849,235 219.16 3,875
Carlsbad.................................... .............. (\2\) .............. ..............
Clovis...................................... 8.8 1,118,197 202.28 5,528
Gallup...................................... 3.2 691,080 347.10 1,991
Hobbs....................................... .............. (\2\) .............. ..............
Silver City/Hurley/Deming................... 8.3 935,667 179.69 5,207
NEW YORK
Massena..................................... 9.0 635,144 112.51 5,645
Ogdensburg.................................. 7.6 635,144 132.76 4,784
Saranac Lake................................ 9.1 631,353 111.06 5,685
Utica....................................... 3.7 1,133,415 495.59 2,287
Watertown................................... 10.7 635,144 94.52 6,720
NORTH DAKOTA
Devils Lake................................. 8.5 793,867 149.17 5,322
Dickinson................................... 12.6 590,153 74.86 7,883
Jamestown................................... 9.4 793,867 134.30 5,911
OKLAHOMA
Enid........................................ 12.1 1,193,915 157.38 7,586
Ponca City.................................. 11.7 1,193,915 162.39 7,352
PENNSYLVANIA
Altoona..................................... 48.1 995,533 33.03 30,141
Johnstown................................... 59.1 849,798 22.97 37,002
Oil City/Franklin........................... 15.2 510,261 53.49 9,540
PUERTO RICO
Ponce....................................... 19.8 337,551 27.28 12,372
SOUTH DAKOTA
Brookings................................... 3.4 849,386 397.09 2,139
Huron....................................... 5.8 394,585 109.58 3,601
Watertown................................... .............. (\2\) .............. ..............
Pierre...................................... 27.9 318,861 18.27 17,452
TENNESSEE
Jackson..................................... 25.3 1,151,993 72.68 15,850
TEXAS
Brownwood................................... 6.8 1,113,305 260.85 4,268
UTAH
Cadar City.................................. 30,0 836,102 44.48 18,798
Moab........................................ (\1\) 971,444 .............. ..............
Vernal...................................... (\1\) 1,102,967 .............. ..............
VERMONT
Rutland..................................... 9.8 1,205,855 195.82 6,158
VIRGINIA
Staunton.................................... .............. (\2\) .............. ..............
WASHINGTON
Ephrata/Moses Lake.......................... 32.7 479,859 23.48 20,439
WEST VIRGINIA
Beckley..................................... 9.0 1,033,847 183.34 5,639
Princeton/Bluefield......................... 7.5 1,033,847 218.99 4,721
WISCONSIN
Oshkosh..................................... 8.7 460,392 84.86 5,425
WYOMING
Laramie..................................... 33.8 297,633 14.07 21,149
Rock Springs................................ 31.3 465,023 23.72 19,605
Worland..................................... 9.5 353,345 59.73 5,916
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A full year's data are not available due to a service hiatus.
\2\ Hold-in rates under negotiation.

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002..................... $5,842,500,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003.................... 5,346,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................. 5,146,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002................. -696,500,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003................ -200,000,000

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was
established on November 19, 2001 pursuant to the Aviation and
Transportation Security Act. The Act makes the agency
responsible for carrying out transportation security activities
in all modes of transportation, including aviation, rail,
highway, pipeline, and maritime. This Act mandated an extensive
TSA role in civil aviation security, transferring
responsibilities from the Federal Aviation Administration and
expanding them to include the direct federal responsibility for
passenger, baggage, and cargo screening at the nation's
commercial service airports. The Act mandated that TSA take
over all passenger screening activities not later than November
19, 2002; provide screening for all checked baggage by
explosive detection systems not later than December 31, 2002;
and deploy armed law enforcement officers at airport screening
checkpoints. The Act authorized user fees to be paid by
passengers and airlines to help defray the agency's costs.

TSA'S START-UP YEAR

By anyone's estimation, TSA has had an extraordinarily
difficult first year. Admittedly, this was partly caused by
overly-ambitious milestones enacted by Congress for the federal
takeover of screening activities. However, these deadlines
cannot account for even a fraction of the missteps and mistakes
made by the agency this year. The Committee has been extremely
frustrated with an agency seemingly unable to make crisp
decisions; unable to present firm budget estimates in a timely
fashion; unable to work cooperatively with the nation's
airports; and unable to take advantage of the multitude of
security-improving and labor-saving technologies available.
Thus far this year, the Committee has held three hearings to
review TSA's performance, and in the third hearing the
Committee established initial performance goals it expects the
agency to meet. The Committee will insist on effective
management and will continue to hold TSA executives accountable
for meeting their performance goals. In addition, the Committee
will demand that TSA foster a much more cooperative attitude
with Congress, airports, and the aviation industry than was
shown earlier this year. The Committee is pleased that this
attitude adjustment appears to be underway at this time.

Committee Recommendation

The Committee recommends total funding of $5,146,000,000 in
four appropriations. The Administration initially requested
$4,800,000,000, but a budget amendment submitted on September
3, 2002 raised the total request to $5,346,000,000. Because
this budget amendment was submitted to the Congress without
proposed offsets, and after passage of the House Budget
Resolution which contained no such funding, the Committee has
had to reduce other programs to address the Administration's
request.

BUDGET PRESENTATION

The Committee does not believe it prudent, or consistent
with other accounts in the bill, to provide a single lump-sum
appropriation to TSA, as requested. Traditionally across the
government, budgetary requests are divided into appropriations
which account for important differences in the activities being
financed, such as operating expenses, capital expenses,
research and development, and grants to state and local
entities. In this way, comparisons can be made across agencies,
and a proper balance can be found between budgetary flexibility
and oversight. For this reason, the Committee recommends that
total TSA funding be provided in four separate appropriations,
for aviation security; maritime and land security; research and
development; and support programs. In addition, the Committee
recommends a revised distribution of programs, projects, and
activities (PPAs) which provides greater flexibility to the
agency within individual appropriations.

TSA STAFFING

The Committee's investigation this year convinces the
Committee that this fledgling agency is planning and budgeting
for a vastly larger federal workforce than is necessary to
protect the American public, and well beyond that contemplated
when the agency was created ten months ago. Although the
Committee stated in both hearings and in action on the fiscal
year 2002 supplemental appropriations bill that the agency must
constrain itself to no more than 45,000 full-time permanent
federal positions, the budget justifications delivered in late
June 2002 requests funds for 67,185 positions next year. In the
fiscal year 2002 supplemental appropriations bill, Congress
capped the agency's full-time staffing at 45,000. The Committee
is adamant that the proposed staffing level is grossly
excessive, and maintains the cap of 45,000 for fiscal year
2003.
TSA's budget for fiscal year 2003 assumes the following
positions for the passenger screening workforce alone which the
Committee finds to be unnecessary or highly questionable. In
fact, at the Committee's June 2002 hearing, the Undersecretary
for Transportation Security was not even aware that many of
these positions were in the budget, and declared that they
would be eliminated.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number assumed
Type of position in FY03 budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shoe and bin runners.................................... 3,407
Ticket checkers (currently performed by airline staff).. 1,430
Hand wanders............................................ 4,241
Queue coordinators...................................... 1,405
Customer service representatives........................ 1,405
Exit lane monitors...................................... 3,248
---------------
Total............................................. 15,136
------------------------------------------------------------------------

These unnecessary and questionable positions total 15,136--
almost one-half the projected passenger screening workforce of
32,900.
Secondly, the budget assumes TSA will require a baggage
screening workforce of 21,500. This number is driven by the
agency's decision to deploy a large number of explosive trace
detection (ETD) systems, which are far more staff-intensive
than CT-scan systems. TSA has made this erroneous decision in
part to meet the unrealistic deadlines established by Congress,
and in part because the agency naively believes it will be able
to reduce its workforce by thousands in later years, when they
decide to replace the ETD systems with the more efficient CT-
scan machines. The Committee finds it pennywise and pound-
foolish to hire workers to operate relatively inefficient
systems in the near-term, only to potentially offer buyouts in
future years to entice them to leave federal service. The
Committee's recommendation, discussed later in this report,
provides alternate funding for TSA to pursue a more efficient
and realistic course, with significant short-term and long-term
salary savings.
Thirdly, the budget assumes large numbers of federal law
enforcement officers (LEOs) pursuant to section 110 of Public
Law 107-71. The Committee believes TSA can do more through
state and local reimbursement, reducing the federal staffing
requirement as well as overall budgetary requirements.
Fourthly, TSA's staffing figures assume approximately 3,000
management, administrative, and support personnel: 2,121 at the
nation's airports and 880 at headquarters. Although some
reductions in the estimates for airport-based staff have been
made by TSA, the Committee believes further reductions are
possible, particularly in support positions such as legal,
human resources, and training. The Committee remains
unconvinced that these type of personnel need to be assigned to
the nation's airports in such large numbers. In addition, TSA's
original plan, assumed in the budget request, for over 300
federal security directors has already been revised to 157 by
the agency. Concerning headquarters staffing, given the
proposed consolidation of TSA into the Department of Homeland
Security, the Committee believes the agency should defer a
portion of planned hiring for headquarters staff until the new
department is established. It is almost certain that
consolidation will allow TSA to utilize the expertise and
staffing already resident in other agencies for some of these
services, including management analysis, financial management,
policy and planning, and human resource management.
Fifthly, TSA's planned federal workforce goes far beyond
the requirements of the Aviation and Transportation Security
Act, which required only that screeners be federal employees.
For example, the agency plans to hire federal exit lane
monitors, shoe and bin runners, queue coordinators, and
customer service representatives that should not be considered
part of the screener workforce for the purposes of interpreting
federalization. The need for this level of federalization
should be reviewed, and would certainly result in greater use
of private sector employees, which would be exempt from the
federal workforce cap. The Committee directs TSA to conduct
this review, in consultation with the OST Office of General
Counsel and the Office of Inspector General, and report its
findings to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
no later than January 31, 2003.
For all of these reasons, the Committee is convinced the
agency will be able to meet its security responsibilities with
no more than 45,000 full-time permanent positions in the coming
year. The Committee also notes that in June 2002 the agency
announced that 20 percent of the projected screener workforce
of 54,400 would be hired as part-time or seasonal positions.
These 10,880 positions would not be subject to the staffing
cap, allowing the agency to achieve total staffing of 55,800, a
reduction of approximately 11,385 from the budget estimate.
Conversion of additional positions to private industry or part-
time federal status would allow an even higher staffing level.

RETIREMENT AND HEALTH BENEFITS

The recommendation makes reductions across all TSA
appropriations to remove funds for accrual costs relating to
the estimated future retirement and health benefit liabilities
of current TSA workers. TSA did not reveal such estimates in
its original budget request even though it was included in this
government-wide proposal. Upon questioning, the agency informed
the Committee that such costs are estimated at $247,630,000 in
fiscal year 2003. Because the Committee is recommending a lower
staffing level at the agency, the Committee has reduced these
budgeted costs by $211,350,000.

Aviation Security

The Committee recommends $4,355,726,000 for aviation
security activities. After accounting for a proposed transfer
of support activities to a separate appropriation, the
reduction from the budget estimate is largely due to approval
of a lower staffing level for screening activities. Funds are
available until expended, and partially offset by offsetting
collections, estimated at $2,650,000,000 from security user
fees and $176,691,000 in reimbursements from the Federal
Aviation Administration for acquisition of explosive detection
systems. Funds are available until expended, as authorized. The
recommendation does not include proposals in the President's
budget to allow the use of security fees for non-aviation
activities. The Committee believes fees paid by aviation
travelers and airlines should be invested in programs directly
benefiting those paying the fees, not cross-subsidizing other
modes of transportation. A comparison of the budget estimate to
the Committee recommended level by budget activity is as
follows:

PASSENGER SCREENING

The Committee recommends $1,786,347,000 for passenger
screening activities. A comparison of the Committee
recommendation to the budget estimate, by budget activity, is
as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY03 budget Committee
estimate recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Passenger screeners................. $2,149,200,000 $1,731,227,000
Cross training...................... 52,100,000 42,100,000
Credentialing....................... 35,000,000 35,000,000
CAPPS II............................ 35,000,000 35,000,000
Checkpoint equipment................ 30,000,000 30,000,000
Electronic surveillance............. 13,500,000 13,500,000
Checkpoint equipment maintenance.... 15,000,000 10,000,000
Support staff....................... (\1\) -260,480,000
Third party screener contracts...... 80,000,000 80,000,000
Planning and deployment............. 70,000,000 70,000,000
-----------------------------------
Total......................... 2,479,800,000 1,786,347,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funding of $260,480,000 was distributed among the individual budget
lines in the budget request.

Passenger screeners.--The Committee's proposed reduction
reflects savings in budgeted staffing and salary costs, as
explained below:
Staffing reduction.--As discussed previously, the Committee
believes that thousands of the budgeted positions in the
passenger screening workforce are unneeded or could be easily
eliminated through the use of technology. For example, the
Committee has been urging TSA for months to quickly replace the
obsolete magnetometers at most U.S. airports with new, state-
of-the-art ones already in use in Canada and several European
countries. The significant improvements in these machines,
including a much lower false alarm rate, will reduce the need
for much of the hand wanding that is in TSA's current operating
procedures. Furthermore, it will reduce the number of shoe and
bin runners, because the current machines are more able to
discriminate between threat objects and non-harmful metal in
shoes. The Committee recommendation provides one-half the
number of shoe and bin runners proposed; 70 percent of the hand
wanders; and none of the ticket checkers, customers service
representatives, and queue coordinators. This will reduce the
planned workforce by approximately 7,200 positions, from 32,900
to 25,700.
Salary savings.--The recommendation reflects savings in the
workforce hired to date. TSA's budget assumed that one-half of
the screeners hired would have prior screening experience, and
would therefore be paid at a higher rate than those individuals
without screening experience. The Committee understands that
the agency has not come close to meeting this prior experience
hiring goal. The recommendation assumes that 25 percent of the
workforce will have prior screening experience. In addition,
the Committee notes that TSA budgeted $42,000 for the
compensation' benefits, and supplies of each screener. While
this appears reasonable for some members of this workforce, the
Committee believes the 3,248 exit lane monitor positions and
3,407 shoe and bin runner positions (half of which are
provided) need not be federal employees, and need not be
compensated at the same level as an x-ray operator. These
individuals are not screening passengers. The Committee directs
TSA to strongly consider the use of contract employees, at
lower salary and benefits levels, for these workforces, and to
explore the use of technologies such as self-closing doors,
which would obviate the need for the exit lane monitor
positions altogether. The Committee's recommendation allows
$30,000 per position. In total, these recommendations allow a
reduction of $38,718,000 in budgeted funds for screener
salaries.
Part-time and seasonal employees.--At the Committee's
urging, TSA announced in June 2002 that 20 percent of the
screening workforce would be part-time or seasonal employees.
The Committee applauds that decision. However, TSA's budget
does not appear to have taken this decision into consideration.
The agency's ratio of full-time equivalent (FTE) staffyears to
full-time positions (FTP) for the screening workforce in fiscal
year 2003 is 90.1 percent. If the entire staff worked full-time
and were on board for the entire fiscal year, the ratio would
be 100 percent. Generally, when new positions are added to the
budget, they are budgeted at 50 percent of a staffyear in the
initial year, reflecting the normal time to recruit and hire
personnel. The Committee's recommendation assumes a reduction
of $20,000,000 reflecting the lower salary and benefits costs
for a part-time and seasonal workforce compared to the original
budget submission.
Attrition rate assumption.--The Committee finds TSA's
assumption of a 25 percent attrition rate for the screener
workforce to be excessive. While it is accurate that previous
attrition rates among the contractor screening workforces were
as high as 400 percent in some airports, the pay and working
conditions of the planned federal workforce represent vast
improvements over that situation. Pay is being doubled,
benefits are more attractive, professional training is being
developed, and new technology is being installed. The Committee
acknowledges that TSA is likely to experience greater attrition
in this workforce than many agencies, however, and assumes a
more reasonable attrition rate of 15 percent for fiscal year
2003.
Cross-training.--TSA's budget requested funds to cross-
train the entire screening workforce during fiscal year 2003.
In other words, passenger screeners would be trained to serve
as baggage screeners, and vice versa. The Committee
recommendation reflects the assumption that a smaller workforce
will be hired.
Credentialing.--The Committee recommends $35,000,000, the
same as the budget estimate. TSA announced an effort to develop
an industry-wide transportation worker identification card
(TWIC) earlier this year. Congress expressed its concern over
TSA's plans in the recently-enacted fiscal year 2002
supplemental appropriations bill, and deferred further TWIC
activities until these problems could be resolved. The
Committee believes the scope of the TWIC effort is so grandiose
as to be infeasible and unworkable. Deciding the requirements,
costs, and financing for card technology to allow every
transportation worker in every industry in the United States to
access only the appropriate facilities and job sites would take
years of industry involvement, and it is unlikely that
consensus across all the affected industries could be reached.
However, the Committee acknowledges that there is a need in the
aviation industry to test and implement access card
technologies that could enable aviation industry workers, and
potentially trusted travelers, to reach their aircraft or job
sites in an expedited fashion. The Committee provides
$35,000,000, and includes bill language specifying that funds
shall support pilot projects on the East and West Coasts. This
is consistent with the agency's current plan, which is to
conduct pilot projects in the Los Angeles/Long Beach area in
California and in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania--Wilmington,
Delaware areas on the East Coast. The Committee expects TSA to
initiate these projects expeditiously, and the bill includes
language directing TSA to include various card, reader, and
database technologies sufficient to make a determination of the
program's costs and requirements. The Committee believes it is
essential to include multiple biometrics on these cards, to
verify the true identity of the individual carrying them. The
Committee understands that the card technology with greatest
capacity for including biometric information is the optical
lasercard, such as that used by the Immigration and
Naturalization Service for permanent resident cards (``green
cards'') and by the Department of State for border crossing
cards. These cards have the added benefit of being virtually
counterfeit-proof. The Committee does not want TSA to develop
new technologies if existing ones, already developed by other
federal agencies, are good enough. Therefore, the Committee
strongly encourages TSA to include, as part of these projects,
optical lasercard technology similar to that used today by the
INS. The Committee notes that, given the proposed consolidation
of INS and TSA into the same Department of Homeland Security,
TSA's implementation of this technology could provide long-term
life cycle cost savings and integration with INS's existing
infrastructure.
Checkpoint equipment maintenance.--The budget estimate
includes $15,000,000 for maintenance of checkpoint equipment.
The Committee believes this requirement is overstated due to
TSA's plan to replace the current obsolete magnetometers at
security checkpoints. Replacement of these systems is scheduled
to begin in September 2002 and complete by December 2002. New
systems are expected to be much more reliable, and under
warranty during their initial start-up period. The Committee
expects TSA to ensure that the magnetometer replacement
schedule does not experience further delays, given its
importance in improving security as well as reducing
unnecessary staff. Immediate replacement of the magnetometers
will reduce the funding requirement by $5,000,000 in fiscal
year 2003.
Support staff.--As previously described, these funds have
been consolidated into a new appropriation.
Contract screening locations.--The Aviation and
Transportation Security Act allows pilot projects at five
airports to demonstrate the viability of using private sector
screening firms under contract, rather than using federal
employees. The Committee has recently learned that TSA intends
to require the five airports in this pilot program to follow
virtually identical operating procedures to TSA's own federal
workforce. The Committee believes TSA should review this
policy, and provide the contract screener pilot locations as
much operational flexibility as possible, while meeting the
same overall security requirements. Only in this way will the
contractors be able to demonstrate the advantages and
disadvantages of the contract screening approach.
Inspection teams.--The Committee believes strongly that TSA
needs to establish, as a top priority, inspection teams to
perform undercover testing of federal screening and security
activities at airports. These inspections were formerly
accomplished by two different branches of the FAA, but after
the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Office of
Inspector General was asked to take over this function on an
interim basis. The Committee believes it is time for TSA to
take over this function as a routine part of its mission. These
tests should be rigorous, unannounced, and difficult. Teams
should receive special training, such as that provided at the
European Aviation Security Training Institute, and the agency
should develop a formal process for recording and following up
on identified deficiencies. Although the budget does not
identify funds specifically for these teams, the Committee
intends to work with TSA to ensure such teams are constituted
over the next fiscal year, and receive the training and
organizational support they require.

BAGGAGE SCREENING

The Committee recommends $1,574,209,000 for baggage
screening, an increase of $128,009,000 above the budget
estimate. The recommendation largely reflects the Committee's
decision to accelerate investment in labor-saving CT-scan
machines, and assumes a waiver of up to one year in the time to
install explosive detection systems. The Administration's
proposal involves the procurement of approximately 4,700
explosive trace detection (ETD) systems and only 1,100 CT-scan
systems. The Committee understands that this decision was made
in order to meet the December 31, 2002 deadline for
installation of EDS systems in all commercial service airports.
However, at this point it has become clear that many large
airports have no hope of meeting this deadline, and doing so
would create chaos in the lobbies of major airports and
legitimate security concerns due to the creation of long,
stagnant lines. This plan would also create significant
government liabilities from the manual opening and searching of
a large volume of checked baggage, tremendous customer
inconvenience, privacy concerns, and billions in unnecessary
expense. TSA officials have recently acknowledged that 30-40
airports will not meet the deadline. The Committee believes a
significant number of airports will not meet the deadline, and
will need additional funding, provided in this bill, for the
more efficient CT-scan systems, the large majority of which can
be installed in-line with airport baggage handling systems.
The provisions and funding in this bill, combined with the
already-passed waiver provisions, allow a more sensible
approach to the ramp-up in airport security, considering the
lessons learned since passage of the Aviation and
Transportation Security Act last November. While the Committee
strongly endorses the goals of that Act to improve security, it
is obvious by now that, expecting a new agency to procure,
install, and staff enough equipment to screen 100 percent of
checked baggage at 429 commercial service airports--compared to
screening of less than 10 percent one year ago--was impossible
to accomplish, without huge waste of federal funds, in thirteen
months. The Committee recommendation abandons this folly, and
allows TSA to pursue an effective course resulting in the same
level of security, on a much faster timetable, at far less cost
to the Federal Government and less invasion of privacy to the
traveling public which is paying for the service.
A comparison of the Committee recommendation to the budget
estimate, by budget activity, is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY03 budget Committee
estimate recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baggage screeners................... $1,310,100,000 $1,110,100,000
Detection equipment maintenance..... 75,000,000 75,000,000
Cross-training...................... 9,700,000 8,500,000
Checked baggage data system......... 1,400,000 1,400,000
Support staff....................... \1\ -170,791,000
EDS systems--procurement............ 50,000,000 275,000,000
EDS/ETD systems--airport ................ 275,000,000
modifications......................
-----------------------------------
Total......................... 1,446,200,000 1,574,209,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funding of $170,791,000 was distributed among the individual budget
lines in the budget request.

Baggage screeners.--The recommendation assumes savings of
$200,000,000 due to staffing size and salary adjustments. The
Committee has included additional funds for the procurement of
CT-scan or other high-throughput systems that can be installed
in-line at airports. These systems require one-fifth to one-
third of the staffing required for trace detection machines
because of the automated nature of the operation. This
additional funding, will result in a need for far less staffing
than the 21,500 included in the budget estimate. The
recommendation assumes savings of approximately 15 percent.
Cross-training.--As described in a previous section of this
report, the recommendation reduces cross-training, from
$9,700,000 to $8,500,000.
Support staff.--As described in a previous section of this
report, the recommendation consolidates support staff costs
into a separate appropriation.
EDS systems procurement.--The Committee recommends
$451,691,000 for procurement of additional explosive detection
systems (EDS). The Administration included $50,000,000 for
additional systems in fiscal year 2003. These funds, which
include $176,691,000 to be transferred from FAA, ``Facilities
and equipment'', shall be used to procure additional CT-scan
systems, or other systems with high throughput rates, with a
focus on installing these systems in-line at airports. In
addition, the bill includes a provision, already passed the
House of Representatives as part of H.R. 5005, which specifies
that EDS systems required pursuant to Public Law 107-71 must be
acquired by the Department of Transportation. The Committee
does not believe that individual airports or the FAA's
``Grants-in-aid for airports'' program should be responsible
for these new federal requirements.
Pilot project, Denver International Airport, CO.--The
Committee understands that Denver International Airport has
requested that TSA approve their proposal to utilize a high
throughput system currently in use in Europe. The Committee
believes TSA should strongly consider this request, consistent
with current detection requirements, in order to expedite the
evaluation of this technology.
Certification process.--Over a period of many years, the
FAA developed a lengthy process for certification of EDS
systems. This process has not been replicated anywhere else in
the world, and does not apply to other technologies such as
trace detection systems. Prior to September 11th, 2001, this
process ensured the delivery of highly sophisticated machines,
able to meet stressing bomb detection requirements, at very few
airports. By contrast, European airports proliferated bomb
detection systems with different requirements at a far higher
percentage of airports. In order to meet the certification
process, the current CT-scan systems are limited in throughput
rate, which may have been satisfactory when the nation was
screening a very low percentage of overall bags. However, the
current requirement to screen all bags puts enormous pressure
not only on the manufacturing base for certified machines, but
also on available resources. Because of the lack of a
manufacturing base for certified systems, and the inability of
other systems to meet the certification process during fiscal
year 2002, earlier this year TSA decided to forego the use of
CT-scan systems in most airports, and instead substitute the
use of trace detection machines, which are not subject to any
certification standard. The outcome is an unfair competition
between the two types of technologies, which provides perverse
incentives for the agency to favor the technology that has
higher life cycle costs and is the most intrusive to
passengers. The Committee directs TSA to review the current
process for evaluating and certifying EDS systems, and find
ways to expedite the certification of new systems on the
horizon which could provide vast improvements in throughput
over the current generation of systems.
EDS/ETD systems, airport modifications.--The recommendation
includes $275,000,000 for airport modifications necessary to
accommodate EDS and ETD systems. An additional $738,000,000 was
appropriated for this purpose in fiscal year 2002, bringing the
total available to $1,013,000,000. Additional funds are needed
given the Committee recommendation to install a higher
percentage of CT-scan systems and the assumption that airports
will be allowed waivers of the current deadline. These funds
will increase the number of airports which are able to place
their bomb detection systems in-line. TSA's funding level
assumed large numbers of trace detection systems as an interim
measure, and very few in-line CT-scan systems.

CARGO SCREENING

The Committee recommends $25,000,000 to continue
improvements in the cargo screening process. The budget
estimate included no funds for this purpose. TSA continues to
note the deficiencies in the current screening process, and the
Committee believes that additional funding is crucial at this
time.

AIRPORT SUPPORT AND ENFORCEMENT PRESENCE

The Committee recommends $1,138,396,000 for airport support
and enforcement presence. This budget activity finances the
costs of federal security directors and their support staff at
airports as well as checkpoint law enforcement officers
required by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act. A
comparison of the Committee recommendation to the budget
estimate is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY03 budget Committee
estimate recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airport support..................... $380,500,000 $359,664,000
Law enforcement..................... 491,500,000 416,500,000
Reimbursable agreements............. 226,000,000 250,000,000
Support staff....................... \1\ -49,727,000
Cockpit door reimbursement.......... 100,000,000 150,000,000
Commercial pilot firearms training.. 20,000,000
CSRS/FEHBP costs.................... -18,041,000
K-9 units........................... 10,000,000 10,000,000
-----------------------------------
Total......................... $1,228,000,000 $1,138,396,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funding of $49,727,000 was distributed among the individual budget
lines in the budget request.

Airport support.--The reduction of $20,836,000 reflects
TSA's decision, made since submission of the budget request, to
hire only 157 federal security directors at the nation's
airports, instead of 314 who were expected to be onboard at the
end of fiscal year 2002 in the original plan.
Law enforcement.--TSA's budget assumed the hire of 3,000
federal law enforcement officers (LEOs). The Committee believes
that savings are possible through greater use of state and
local law enforcement officers. Consequently, funds have been
reduced in this budget line, but raised under ``reimbursable
agreements'', which finances state and local LEO reimbursement.
In addition, the bill includes provisions amending current law
which make it clear that TSA has the flexibility to hire either
federal or non-federal officers to fill checkpoint LEO
responsibilities. The Administration requested this change as
part of proposed technical amendments to the Aviation and
Transportation Security Act, which were submitted to the
Congress on July 30, 2002.
Former FAA civil aviation security personnel.--The
Committee notes that TSA has replaced many of FAA's previous
responsibilities with new positions with little or no review of
whether that workforce should be reduced over time. For
example, the agency has taken onto its payroll former FAA
employees serving as airport-based federal security managers,
but has hired, in most cases, new individuals to serve as TSA
federal security directors and deputy directors. The Committee
believes the positions held by former FAA personnel in field
offices requires immediate review by TSA to determine whether
there is a firm requirement for this entire workforce. The
Committee directs TSA to provide a detailed report on the
number, types, and responsibilities of these positions, and the
requirement for their retention, to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations no later than February 15, 2003.
The Committee recommendation assumes that significant
reductions will be possible in this workforce through
attrition.
Criminal investigators.--The recommendation includes a
reduction in the number of criminal investigators. The budget
justifications explain that these personnel will be
``investigating crimes and suspicious activity, preventing
crimes, and serving as a deterrent'' to illegal activity at
airports. The Committee does not agree that the TSA should have
substantial sums of investigative personnel assigned
permanently to airports investigating activity the agency deems
suspicious, and believes this goes far beyond the mandate
established for TSA by the Aviation and Transportation Security
Act. The number of these positions should be minimized, and
they should be based out of headquarters or out of regional
service centers, where they can be assigned to cases as they
arise, and not trolling through airports looking for suspicious
activity.
Reimbursable agreements.--The recommendation provides an
additional $24,000,000 reflecting greater usage of state and
local resources rather than full-time federal personnel.
Support staff.--As discussed previously, these costs have
been consolidated into a separate budget line.
Cockpit door reimbursement.--The Committee provides
$150,000,000 for TSA to reimburse airlines for the costs of
complying with departmental mandates to retrofit all commercial
aircraft with phase II hardened cockpit doors no later than
April 9, 2003. The Committee strongly supports this effort, but
believes that the extraordinary nature and short timeframe of
this mandate justify federal investment. In addition, some
airlines may not be able to make all the necessary
modifications during scheduled maintenance periods. If this
occurs, airlines may have to take aircraft out of revenue
service to meet the deadline, which would be especially
difficult given the industry's difficult financial situation.
An emergency appropriation of $100,000,000 was provided to
support this effort in fiscal year 2002. The Committee also
notes that $7,000,000 of the fiscal year 2002 funds were
reprogrammed and used for aircraft video surveillance and
related technologies. The Committee believes this use of
funding should have gone through the reprogramming process, as
it constituted a new activity not previously justified or
contemplated by the appropriation, and reminds the department
of the need to follow established procedures.
Cargo Aircraft Cockpit Doors.--In the Aviation and
Transportation Security Act, P.L. 107-71 (``ATSA''), Congress
required reinforced flight deck doors for passenger aircraft
only, not for all-cargo aircraft. This recognized a clear
distinction in security needs between passenger and all-cargo
operations, in particular the fact that all-cargo carriers are
not in the business of transporting strangers, and thus can
confidently identify and screen all persons having access to
their aircraft. That capability is being employed through a
variety of new procedures and requirements, including the
Security Program for Aircraft 12,500 Pounds or More, Docket No.
TSA-2002-11604, scheduled for implementation by December 1,
2002, and through new rules governing jumpseat access. However,
in implementing the Congressional mandate, the Federal Aviation
Administration extended it to cover all-cargo aircraft as well,
and did so effective immediately, without notice and
opportunity for comment.
Congress has provided funds to reimburse the airlines for
the costs of installing cockpit door improvements. It makes
sense to focus available resources first, as Congress did in
the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, on the highest
security priority--flight deck doors on passenger carriers. The
Committee has included a provision that requires the Under
Secretary for Transportation Security to review whether it is
necessary to apply the cockpit door strengthening requirements
to all-cargo carriers before requiring such modifications.
Commercial pilot firearms training.--The Committee
recommends $20,000,000, as requested, to defray costs of a
House-passed bill which requires the agency to provide use of
force and firearms training to any commercial airline pilot
requesting such training.

Maritime and Land Security

The Committee recommends $206,864,000 for maritime and land
transportation security, an increase of $159,064,000 above the
budget estimate. A comparison of the budget estimate to the
Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY03 budget Committee
estimate recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Port security grants................ ................ $150,000,000
Staff............................... $23,000,000 23,000,000
Information technology.............. 4,800,000 4,800,000
Nuclear detection and monitoring ................ 4,000,000
systems............................
Support staff....................... ................ -1,239,000
CSRS/FEHBP cost..................... ................ -697,000
Trucking safety grants.............. 20,000,000 27,000,000
-----------------------------------
Total......................... 47,800,000 206,864,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Port security grants.--The Committee recommends
$150,000,000, an increase of $150,000,000 above the amount in
the budget estimate. There are 361 public ports in the United
States. Shipments through these ports account for over 95
percent of the nation's overseas trade. The Committee believes
it is imperative for the Federal Government to assist local
port authorities in their most pressing security needs. The
Committee expects the Undersecretary to consult with local port
authorities regarding potential grants affecting their port
before grants are awarded, to ensure adequate coordination with
local communities.
Staff.--The Committee recommends $23,000,000 for TSA to
continue to build staff expertise in the area of maritime and
land transportation security. This is expected to finance the
hire of 225 positions, the same as the budget estimate.
Information technology.--The Committee recommends
$4,800,000 for information technology projects, including a
container tracking project known as Operation Safe Commerce and
a container threat assessment project. This is the same as the
budget estimate.
Nuclear detection and monitoring systems.--The Committee
recommends $4,000,000 for continued evaluation and acquisition
of nuclear detection and monitoring systems. Funding of
$4,000,000 was provided in fiscal year 2002.
Trucking safety grants.--The Committee recommends
$27,000,000 for continued improvements in trucking safety. The
recommended level includes $20,000,000, as requested, for
activities in the budget amendment submitted in September 2002.
In addition, the recommended level includes $5,000,000 for a
hazardous materials safety permit program and $2,000,000 for a
truck security pilot program.
Hazardous materials safety permit program.--The Committee
recommends $5,000,000 to implement the permit program required
by law for those motor carriers transporting the most dangerous
hazardous materials. Given that this permit program is
especially critical now in light of truck security concerns,
TSA should ensure that it is implemented within one year from
the date of enactment of this Act. The Committee would not
oppose the conduct of this program by FMCSA on a reimbursable
basis.
Truck security pilot program.--The Committee understands
that technology exists from a number of manufacturers that
allows trucks to be remotely tracked and controlled. The TSA
and the FMCSA may decide to mandate the use of such systems in
the permit program discussed above. So that TSA and FMCSA may
completely understand the performance characteristics of such
systems, the Committee has included $2,000,000 for a pilot
program.
Support staff.--As previously discussed, funding for
support staff has been consolidated in a new budget line.

Research and Development

The Committee recommends $129,519,000 for research and
development, a reduction of $681,000 below the budget estimate.
The reductions involve the consolidation of support costs
(-$385,000) and a removal of retirement and health benefit
accrual costs (-$296,000).
A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee
recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

Walk-through portals.--The Committee remains supportive of
non-invasive explosive trace detection walk-through portals.
These portals can be used in airports to guard against
explosives carried by individuals. This equipment should be
evaluated as soon as possible to test enhanced checkpoint
security. The Committee encourages TSA to use up to $2,000,000
in research and development funding to purchase and deploy this
equipment for evaluation in airports.

Support Services

The Committee recommends $453,891,000 for activities in
support of TSA missions. In the budget request, these costs
were largely distributed, on a pro rata share, to the
individual programs, projects, and activities. In order to more
properly account for the direct cost of various TSA activities,
and to foster greater Congressional oversight, the Committee
consolidates these funds in a single appropriation. Additional
discussion and guidance is provided in a classified annex to
this report.

COAST GUARD

Summary of Fiscal Year 2003 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 the 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.
Including funds for national security activities and
retired pay accounts, the Committee recommends a total program
level of $6,060,978,000 for activities of the Coast Guard in
fiscal year 2003. This is $566,319,000 (10.3 percent) above the
fiscal year 2002 program level.
The following table summarizes the fiscal year 2002 program
levels, the fiscal year 2003 program requests, and the
Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Program -------------------------------------- Committee
2002 enacted 2003 estimate recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating expenses..................................... $3,780,150,000 $4,153,456,000 $4,305,456,000
Acquisition, construction, and improvements............ 964,354,000 725,000,000 725,000,000
Environmental compliance and restoration............... 16,927,000 17,000,000 17,000,000
Alteration of bridges.................................. 15,466,000 ................. 17,000,000
Retired pay............................................ 876,346,000 889,000,000 889,000,000
Reserve training....................................... 83,194,000 86,522,000 86,522,000
Research, development, test, and evaluation............ 20,222,000 22,000,000 21,000,000
Navigation service user fees........................... ................. -165,000,000 .................
--------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................ 5,767,659,000 5,892,978,000 6,060,978,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Operating Expenses

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 \1\................. $3,780,150,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003 \2\................ 4,153,456,000
Recommended in the bill \3\......................... 4,305,456,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002................. +525,306,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003................ +152,000,000

\1\ Includes $440,000,000 for national security activities scored in
budget function 050 and $409,150,000 in supplemental emergency
appropriations.
\2\ Includes $340,000,000 for national security activities scored in
budget function 050 and offsetting collections of $165,000,000 from
proposed new user fees.
\3\ Includes $1,300,000,000 for national security activities scored in
budget function 050.

This appropriation provides funding for the operation and
maintenance of multipurpose vessels, aircraft, and shore units
strategically located along the coasts and inland waterways of
the United States and in selected areas overseas. This is the
primary appropriation financing operational activities of the
Coast Guard.
Including $1,300,000,000 for national security activities,
the Committee recommends a total of $4,305,456,000 for
operating activities of the Coast Guard in fiscal year 2003, an
increase of $525,306,000 (13.9 percent) above the fiscal year
2002 appropriation and $152,000,000 above budget request.
Specific adjustments to the budget estimate are discussed
below:
Homeland security liaison billets.--The Committee
recommends no funding for homeland security liaison billets, a
reduction of $4,094,000 below the budget estimate. The budget
requested funds for 43 new positions, to be detailed to other
agencies to coordinate homeland security efforts and provide
assistance in homeland security activities. If necessary, the
Committee believes these positions should be funded via
reimbursable agreement with the agencies receiving the support,
not through new appropriations to the Coast Guard. Further,
since this budget request was submitted, the administration has
proposed the establishment of a Department of Homeland
Security. Future appropriations to this new department should
obviate the need for a large number of temporary detailees from
other federal agencies.
Polar icebreaking reimbursement.--The Committee is
disappointed that the fiscal year 2003 budget reverses a recent
trend toward greater reimbursement of the Coast Guard's
expenses for polar icebreaking. The following data shows the
amount of reimbursements received by the Coast Guard for these
services for the past five years and the percentage of total
program costs reimbursed:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
% of total cost
Fiscal year Reimbursements reimbursed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999............................... $2,711,000 12
2000............................... 2,145,000 8
2001............................... 4,966,000 13
2002............................... 9,664,000 25
2003 estimate...................... 6,515,000 17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Committee believes the Coast Guard should seek to
achieve the same level of reimbursements for polar icebreaking
services as estimated for fiscal year 2002. The Committee
recommendation assumes the Coast Guard will achieve that goal,
allowing a reduction of $3,149,000 in direct appropriations
with no effect on the overall program.
Response boat--small.--The recommendation includes an
additional $10,000,000 for the Coast Guard to accelerate
replacement of the existing non-standard boat inventory. The
Coast Guard is planning this replacement under a project known
as response boat--small. However, the Coast Guard is planning a
seven year replacement cycle, despite the fact that 30 percent
of these boats are beyond their design life already. In
addition, the boats are being utilized significantly more hours
each month, often with deferred maintenance, to satisfy new
homeland security requirements. These assets are critical for
two of the service's highest priority missions: homeland
security and search and rescue.
Small boat station/command center readiness.--The bill
includes an additional $10,000,000 to continue the high
priority initiatives begun in fiscal year 2002 to address
longstanding readiness deficiencies at the Coast Guard small
boat stations and command centers.
Maritime search and rescue.--The recommendation transfers
the following items to ``Acquisition, construction, and
improvements'', to more appropriately reflect the nature of the
work being performed. These are flight data recorders/cockpit
data recorders ($2,700,000) and self-contained breathing
apparatus ($1,115,000).
Vessel traffic system, Corpus Christi, TX.--The
recommendation transfers this item to ``Acquisition,
construction, and improvements'', to more appropriately reflect
the nature of the work being performed.
High interest vessel control follow-on/personnel support
costs.--The Committee recommendation reduces by one-half the
requested increase in funds for personnel support costs. Based
upon the budget justifications and information submitted for
the hearing record, these costs appear unrelated to the high
interest vessel control program. This results in a reduction of
$3,776,000 below the budget estimate.
Maritime safety and security teams.--The budget requested
funds to establish two new maritime safety and security teams
(MSSTs) in fiscal year 2003, increasing the total number of
teams from four to six. According to the Coast Guard, the
service has located resources to stand up five MSSTs in fiscal
year 2002, reducing the startup costs needed in fiscal year
2003. The recommendation recognizes this program change, and
provides the necessary resources to start up the sixth MSST in
the coming fiscal year. This results in a reduction below the
budget estimate of $6,340,000. In addition, the recommendation
deletes the $3,731,000 requested for additional staffing of
coastal and oceangoing buoy tenders. The Coast Guard has not
adequately explained how this staffing is related to homeland
security missions or the maritime safety and security teams.
Security readiness and planning.--The Committee has deleted
the requested increases for additional attorneys ($1,767,000)
and contract administrators ($395,000). The Coast Guard has not
adequately explained how this staffing is related to homeland
security missions or security readiness and planning. If the
Coast Guard has additional legal or contracting requirements
arising from homeland security activities, the service should
seek to reassign existing staff from support activities which
are now of lower priority.
Incident command system.--The Committee is not convinced
that the Coast Guard needs 14 new full-time public affairs
specialists to handle the workload arising from last year's
terrorist attacks. The service already has 96 public affairs
specialists, including 32 at headquarters and 64 at various
field units. Larger field units where homeland security
activities are centered have already allocated significant
public affairs resources. For example, seven billets each are
assigned to Coast Guard offices in Miami, Florida and
Portsmouth, Virginia. Particularly given the expected
transition of the Coast Guard to the proposed Department of
Homeland Security, the service should defer such hiring until
the consolidation determines whether additional support staff
are truly necessary. This results in a reduction of $1,400,000
below the budget estimate.
Ammunition funding.--The Committee is concerned over the
rising costs of the Coast Guard's ammunition budget. For the
past four fiscal years (1999-2002), the Coast Guard's budget
for ammunition averaged $826,051 per year. This reflects the 12
percent increase experienced in fiscal year 2002 after the
September 2001 terrorist attacks, which brought 2002
expenditures to an estimated $1,034,888. By contrast, the
fiscal year 2003 budget requests $10,122,888 for ammunition--
ten times the amount experienced in past years. Coast Guard
officials explain that this cost increase is largely due to the
desire to purchase environmental-friendly ammunition, which is
far more expensive than regular ammunition. Information
provided to the Committee indicates that this so-called ``green
ammo'' is, in many cases, twice as expensive as traditional
types of ammunition. The Committee has been unable to determine
the necessity of this requirement. Although the Committee
recommends the full amount of the Coast Guard's request, the
Committee encourages the Coast Guard and the department to
review the requirement for the procurement of ``green ammo''.
Homeland security budget presentation.--The Committee has
found several instances in the Coast Guard's budget where items
of questionable contribution to homeland security activities
were included within the homeland security request. These
include public affairs specialists, attorneys, and additional
staffing for oceangoing and coastal buoy tenders. Although the
Committee intends to provide full funding for necessary
homeland security requirements, the Committee cautions the
Coast Guard to ensure that, in development of future budgets,
items unrelated to homeland security are not presented in the
budget under homeland security categories.
Great Lakes pilotage.--The Committee understands that the
Coast Guard has before it a proposal to streamline and
modernize the pilotage system on the Great Lakes. The Committee
urges the Coast Guard to ensure that this proposal receives all
due consideration. This should include a full review by the
Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory Committee. The Coast Guard should
also ensure that all elements of the Great Lakes maritime
industry have an opportunity to comment on the proposal and
participate in its development.
Pier safety study.--On May 18, 2000, a 140 foot section of
pier 34 on the Delaware River in Philadelphia collapsed,
killing three people and injuring several others. The Committee
understands that there are currently no federal safety
standards for piers. The Committee directs the Coast Guard to
undertake a study of pier safety, including recommendations for
improving pier safety. Such study shall be submitted to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than six
months after enactment of this Act.
Fuel tank safety.--The Committee understands that the
Department of Defense has tested the success of alumimum mesh
technology in preventing explosions in fuel tanks and storage
containers, regardless of ignition source. Given the need to
increase security at our ports and elsewhere, the Coast Guard
is directed to review whether such technology would be
beneficial in protecting public safety at Coast Guard
facilities, and report on the results of such review to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by July 1, 2003.
Dual use technologies.--The Coast Guard has critical
responsibilities in both counter-drug and counter-terror
operations. The Committee is aware that technology exists which
is able to simultaneously detect minute quantities of narcotics
as well as explosives on individuals, baggage, vehicles, cargo,
and documents. These dual-use devices can reduce Coast Guard
manpower and maintenance costs and provide synergies between
these two missions. The Committee encourages the Coast Guard to
evaluate and utilize these dual-use technology systems.

BILL LANGUAGE

Defense-related activities.--The bill specifies that
$1,300,000,000 of the total amount provided is for national
security-related activities. This level is $860,000,000 above
the level enacted for fiscal year 2002 and $960,000,000 above
the budget estimate.

GENERAL PROVISION

Vessel traffic safety fairway, Santa Barbara/San
Francisco.--The bill continues as a general provision (Sec.
311) 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.

Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 \1\................. $702,354,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003.................... 725,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................. 725,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002................. +22,646,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003................ ..................

\1\ Includes $328,000,000 in supplemental emergency appropriations.

This capital appropriation finances the acquisition of new
capital assets, construction of new facilities, and physical
improvements to existing facilities and assets. The
appropriation covers Coast Guard-owned and operated vessels,
aircraft, shore facilities, and other equipment such as
computer systems, as well as the personnel needed to manage
acquisition activities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The recommended bill includes $725,000,000 for this
appropriation, including $500,000,000 for the Integrated
Deepwater Systems (``deepwater'') program. The bill fully funds
the high priority National Distress System Modernization
Project.
Consistent with past practice, the bill 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.
The following table compares the fiscal year 2002 enacted
level, the fiscal year 2003 estimate, and the recommended level
by program, project and activity:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 Fiscal year 2003 House
Program name enacted estimate recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessels................................................... $127,740,000 $13,600,000 $11,715,000
Survey and design--cutters and boats.................. 500,000 400,000 400,000
Seagoing buoy tender (WLB) replacement................ 68,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
Polar class icebreaker reliability improvement program 4,490,000 2,200,000 2,200,000
41 foot utility boat replacement...................... 12,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
85-Foot fast patrol craft............................. 4,650,000 ................ ................
Alex Haley conversion project......................... ................ 3,000,000 ................
Boarding and escort patrol boats (CPBs)............... 24,000,000 ................ ................
87-foot CPB small boat replacement.................... 2,100,00 ................ ................
Shipboard contained breathing apparatus (SCBA)........ ................ ................ 1,115,000
Aircraft.................................................. 209,500,000 ................ 2,700,000
Aviation parts and support............................ 9,000,000 ................ ................
C-130J system provisioning and training support 500,000 ................ ................
analyses.............................................
FDRs/CVRs............................................. ................ ................ 2,700,000
Other Equipment........................................... 107,022,000 117,700,000 114,200,000
Ports and waterways safety system (PAWSS)............. 28,929,000 5,000,000 8,600,000
Marine information for safety and law enforcement 7,450,000 ................ ................
(MISLE)..............................................
National distress system modernization................ 42,000,000 90,000,000 90,000,000
Defense message system implementation................. 6,300,000 2,100,000 ................
Commercial satellite communications................... 1,500,000 ................ ................
Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS).... 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000
Search and Rescue Capabilities Enhancement Project.... 1,320,000 ................ ................
Thirteenth district microwave modernization project... 800,000 3,000,000 3,000,000
Hawaii Rainbow communications system modernization.... 3,100,000 3,000,000 3,000,000
High frequency recapitalization and modernization..... 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Command center readiness/infrastructure 727,000 ................ ................
recapitalization.....................................
P-250 pump replacement................................ 2,046,000 ................ ................
Configuration management--phase II.................... 3,000,000 ................ ................
Self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) replacement. 1,000,000 ................ ................
Maritime electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) sensors for 4,000,000 ................ ................
cutters/boats........................................
Ice detecting radar--Cordova, AK...................... 650,000 ................ ................
Prince William Sound WAN replacement, AK.............. ................ 1,000,000 1,000,000
Maritime domain awareness information management...... ................ 9,400,000 4,400,000
Shore Facilities and Aids to Navigation................... 135,271,000 28,700,000 31,385,000
Survey and design--shore projects..................... 4,000,000 2,500,000 5,500,000
Minor AC&I shore construction projects................ 4,000,000 4,900,000 4,900,000
Housing............................................... 13,500,000 7,000,000 7,000,000
Waterways ATON projects............................... 5,500,000 4,900,000 4,900,000
Rebuild Coast Guard Station, Port Huron, MI........... 3,100,000 ................ ................
Consolidate warehouse--Coast Guard Yard, MD........... 12,600,000 ................ ................
Construct new Station--Brunswick, GA.................. 3,600,000 ................ ................
Replace utilities, ISC building number 8--Boston, MA.. 1,600,000 ................ ................
Construct engineering building, ISC Honolulu-- 7,200,000 ................ ................
Honolulu, HI.........................................
Consolidate Kodiak aviation support--Kodiak, AK....... 5,700,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
Reconstruction North Wall, Escanaba Municipal Dock, MI 300,000 ................ ................
Rebuild ISC Seattle Pier 36--Phase I.................. 10,000,000 ................ ................
Coast Guard Marine Safety & Rescue Station--Chicago, 2,000,000 ................ ................
IL...................................................
Construct new station--Manistee, MI................... ................ 5,400,000 5,085,000
Homeland security shore infrastructure support........ 8,171,000 ................ ................
Station Oak Island, NC fire damage repair/rebuild..... 4,000,000 ................ ................
Personnel and Related Support............................. 64,631,000 75,846,000 65,000,000
Direct personnel costs................................ 63,931,000 64,500,000 64,500,000
Core acquisition costs................................ 700,000 500,000 500,000
Integrated Deepwater Systems.............................. 320,190,000 500,000,000 500,000,000
Aircraft.............................................. 35,700,000 138,200,000 138,200,000
Surface ships......................................... 36,700,000 215,700,000 215,700,000
C4ISR................................................. 106,500,000 ................ ................
Logistics............................................. 71,200,000 71,600,000 16,600,000
Shore facilities...................................... ................ ................ 7,200,000
System engineering and integration.................... ................ ................ 47,800,000
Other contracts....................................... 39,800,000 43,500,000 43,500,000
Government program management......................... 30,290,000 31,000,000 31,000,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total appropriation................................. 702,354,000 725,000,000 725,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VESSELS

The Committee recommends $11,715,000 for vessels,
$1,885,000 below the budget estimate. Specific adjustments to
the budget estimate are as shown below.
Alex Haley conversion project.--The recommendation deletes
the $3,000,000 requested for this project in order to fund
higher budget priorities.
41-foot utility boat replacement.--The bill includes
$4,000,000 to continue acquisition of a replacement for the
current 41-foot utility boat under a program now known as
``response boat--medium''. The Committee directs the Coast
Guard to acquire these boats following a full and open
competition among private shipyards, and not to engage in
production of this asset in government facilities such as the
Coast Guard Yard.
Shipboard contained breathing apparatus (SCBA).--The bill
includes $1,115,000 in this appropriation, a transfer from
``Operating expenses''. This is the same as the budget
estimate.

AIRCRAFT

The Committee recommends $2,700,000 for aircraft, which is
the same amount above the budget estimate. The recommendation
includes $2,700,000 in this appropriation for flight data
recorders and cockpit voice recorders, a transfer from
``Operating expenses''. This is the same as the budget
estimate.

OTHER EQUIPMENT

The Committee recommends $114,200,000 for other equipment,
a reduction of $3,500,000 below the budget estimate and
$7,178,000 above the amount provided for fiscal year 2002.
Specific adjustments to the budget estimate are explained
below:
Ports and waterways safety system.--The bill includes
$8,600,000, an increase of $3,600,000 above the budget
estimate. The increase reflects a transfer of funds for VTS
Corpus Christi, Texas from ``Operating expenses''. The
recommended funding, including the transfer, is the same as the
budget estimate for these items.
Defense message system implementation.--The recommendation
deletes the $2,100,000 requested for this program, as these
requirements were financed in the recently-enacted supplemental
appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002.
Maritime domain awareness information management.--The
Committee recommends $4,400,000 for this project, a reduction
of $5,000,000 below the budget estimate. The recommendation
defers computer upgrade of the Maritime Information System for
Law Enforcement (MISLE). A recent audit of the U.S. General
Accounting Office has raised serious concerns over cost
overruns in this program. Based upon these issues, the
Committee believes further upgrades should be deferred.

SHORE FACILITIES AND AIDS TO NAVIGATION

The Committee recommends $31,385,000 for shore facilities
and aids to navigation, an increase of $2,685,000 above the
budget estimate. Specific adjustments to the budget estimate
are detailed below.
Survey and design, shore projects.--The recommendation
includes $5,500,000, an increase of $3,000,000 above the budget
estimate. Over the past five fiscal years, appropriations for
this program have averaged $5,397,000. The Committee believes
the proposed reduction to $2,500,000 is too severe, and would
compromise the Coast Guard's ability to address critical
housing and shore facility needs. Maintaining an adequate shore
facility budget is especially critical as the service
accommodates a growing workforce for expanded homeland security
missions. The recommended level restores funding to the average
experienced over the past five years.
Station Manistee, MI.--The recommendation includes
$5,085,000, a reduction of $315,000 due to budget constraints.
Short-range aids to navigation.--The bill includes
$4,900,000 for short-range waterways aids to navigation
projects, which are critical to ensure safe and economical
passage through our nation's waterways. These funds are
expected to be distributed as follows:

Location Amount
Delaware River, DE...................................... $950,000
Chesapeake Bay, MD...................................... 850,000
Houston-Galveston, TX................................... 1,400,000
Cape Fear River, NC..................................... 765,000
Pascagoula, MS.......................................... 100,000
Columbia River, WA...................................... 21,000
Agat, Guam.............................................. 33,000
Humboldt Bay, CA........................................ 126,000
Lake St. Clair, MI...................................... 655,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 4,900,000

INTEGRATED DEEPWATER SYSTEMS

The Committee recommends $500,000,000 for continued
implementation of the integrated deepwater systems
(``deepwater'') program in fiscal year 2003. This is the same
as the budget estimate, and an increase of $179,810,000 (56.1
percent) above the amount provided for fiscal year 2002. Funds
are to be distributed as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity Quantity Funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aircraft........................... ................ $138,200,000
Maritime patrol aircraft (CASA 3 (123,200,000)
HC-235).......................
VTOL unmanned aerial vehicle... ................ (15,000,000)
Surface Ships...................... ................ 215,700,000
National security cutter....... ................ (137,800,000)
270 foot cutter upgrade........ 2 (700,000)
210 foot cutter upgrade........ 4 (1,400,000)
378 foot cutter upgrade........ 3 (1,400,000)
110 foot patrol boat upgrade... 11 (74,400,000)
Logistics.......................... ................ 16,600,000
Shore Facilities................... 8 7,200,000
System Engineering & Integration... ................ 47,800,000
Other Contracts.................... ................ 43,500,000
Program Management................. ................ 31,000,000
------------------------------------
Total........................ ................ 500,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The deepwater prime contract was signed in June 2002.
Because this program is just beginning its implementation
phase, it is imperative for the Coast Guard to establish firm
requirement, cost, and schedule baselines as well as routine
performance monitoring and measurement systems. The Committee
is aware that the Coast Guard intends to monitor the status of
deepwater through the presentation of quarterly ``quad
charts'', which will provide an assessment in four key areas:
trends by key indicators; cost; schedule; and significant
issues or upcoming events. The Committee directs the Coast
Guard to provide this information to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations as it is released. In addition,
the Committee directs the Coast Guard to provide a quarterly
summary of the cost and schedule status of major contracts and
subcontracts, including a summary of task and delivery order
changes, engineering change proposals submitted, and requests
for equitable adjustment by the contractors. The Committee
strongly encourages the Coast Guard to fully utilize the
services of the Defense Contract Audit Agency in conducting
contract audit and evaluation services in support of the
program management team.
Reprogramming guidelines.--Because of the size and scope of
this program, the Committee believes the existing AC&I
reprogramming guidelines require clarification to ensure
adequate Congressional oversight and control. With certain
exceptions, the current guidelines allow funding shifts of 15
percent or less among projects without Congressional
notification or approval. Applied to the current deepwater
budget, this could be construed to allow the movement of over
$32,000,000 to new activities without any Congressional
oversight. The Committee therefore directs the Coast Guard to
proceed only through the Congressional notification
reprogramming process with any budget changes exceeding 10
percent of the base amount appropriated for programs, projects,
and activities (PPAs), as defined by line items shown in the
distribution of funds table shown in this section. Any changes
in the number or type of deliverable assets (e.g., fixed-wing
or rotary-wing aircraft, ships, or boats) not contemplated in
the budget justifications are subject to reprogramming
approval.
Requirement and asset changes.--The Committee is aware that
the Coast Guard has tasked the prime contractor to study
changes in deepwater requirements and assets. The Committee is
disturbed to hear that the service is contemplating major asset
changes only a few months after contract signing. The
Committee's recommendation of funding is based upon the
justification of assets presented to the Committee at this
point in time. Should the Coast Guard decide to pursue other
assets, the Committee directs the service to do so only through
the formal reprogramming process and only after adequate
justification to the Appropriations Committees.
Affordability.--Last year, the appropriations conferees
agreed to provide funding for the first year of the prime
contract only after the Director, Office of Management and
Budget and the Secretary of Transportation jointly certified
that the program was fully funded in Presidential budget
assumptions for the first five years of the contract. Although
that certification was made, the Committee is concerned that
the program may still be underfunded. The Committee's analysis
indicates that this program is underfunded by at least
$210,000,000 over the next five years. The Committee encourages
the department to work with the Office of Management and Budget
to clarify and address this shortfall in development of outyear
budgets for the deepwater program. The longer this program
proceeds with a gap between contract funding and projected
budgets, the more difficult it will be for the program to meet
its cost and schedule targets.
Compliance with the Buy American Act.--The Committee has
included a provision (sec. 345) clarifying that the Integrated
Deepwater Systems procurement program is subject to the terms
and conditions of the Buy American Act. The Committee directs
the Coast Guard to ensure that in complying with such Act, U.S.
manufacturers of the major components of Deepwater ships
(including diesel engines, radars, and propulsors) are given
every opportunity to fully compete in such procurement.

PERSONNEL AND RELATED SUPPORT

The Committee recommends $65,000,000, which includes all
requested funding except removal of accrual costs, which are
explained in an earlier section of this report, and a reduction
of $200,000 in core acquisition costs. Total funding for this
budget activity is approximately the same as enacted for fiscal
year 2002.
Quarterly acquisition reports.--The Committee continues to
receive quarterly acquisition reports from the Coast Guard,
which describe the cost, schedule, and contractual status of
major acquisition projects. The Committee believes these
reports have not provided timely notice of major contractual or
technical issues, such as those which led to termination of the
marine information system for law enforcement (MISLE) contract
in 1999, and those leading to cost growth in the C-130J
acquisition and Alex Haley conversion projects. The Committee
directs the Coast Guard to work with the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations, in consultation with the Office
of Inspector General, to develop an improved format for these
reports during fiscal year 2003.

BILL LANGUAGE

Capital investment plan.--The bill maintains the
requirement for the Coast Guard to submit a five-year capital
investment plan with initial submission of the President's
budget request. This Congressional requirement was first
established in fiscal year 2002.
Disposal of real property.--The bill maintains the
provision enacted in fiscal year 2002 crediting to this
appropriation proceeds from the sale or lease of the Coast
Guard's surplus real property, and providing that such receipts
are available for obligation in fiscal year 2003 only for the
national distress and response system (ND&RS) modernization
project.

Environmental Compliance and Restoration

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002..................... $16,927,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003.................... 17,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................. 17,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002................. +73,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003................ ..................
This appropriation assists in bringing Coast Guard
facilities into compliance with applicable federal, state and
environmental regulations; conducting facilities response
plans; developing pollution and hazardous waste minimization
strategies; conducting environmental assessments; and
conducting 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 of $17,000,000 is the same as
the budget estimate and $73,000 (less than one percent) above
the fiscal year 2002 enacted level.

Alteration of Bridges

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002..................... $15,466,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003.................... ..................
Recommended in the bill............................. 17,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002................. +1,534,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003................ +17,000,000
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 of the
administration that obstructive highway bridges and combination
rail/highway bridges should be funded out of the Federal
Highway Administration's discretionary bridge account, and
notes that this proposal was not included in the TEA-21
conference report. 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 Committee recommends $17,000,000 for five bridges. The
Committee directs that, of the funds provided, $3,500,000 shall
be allocated to the Sidney Lanier highway bridge in Brunswick,
Georgia; $8,000,000 shall be allocated to the Fourteen Mile
Bridge over the Mobile River in Mobile, Alabama; $1,000,000
shall be allocated to the Galveston Causeway Bridge in Texas;
$2,000,000 shall be allocated to the Chelsea Street Bridge in
Boston, Massachusetts; and $2,500,000 shall be allocated to the
Florida Avenue railroad/highway combination bridge in New
Orleans, Louisiana.
Millennium port.--The Committee supports the Millennium
Port Commission's progress on the working plan recently
completed, and encourages the commission to continue working
with the Port of New Orleans, Lafourche Parish, Plaquemines
Parish, and all other South Louisiana port entities to
expeditiously develop the millennium port in Louisiana.

Retired Pay

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002..................... $876,346,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003.................... 889,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................. 889,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002................. +12,654,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003................ ..................
This appropriation provides for the retired pay of military
personnel of the Coast Guard and the Coast Guard Reserve,
including career status bonuses for active duty personnel. 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.
The bill provides $889,000,000, the same as the budget
estimate and $12,654,000 (1.4 percent) above the fiscal year
2002 enacted level. This is scored as a mandatory appropriation
in the Congressional budget process.

Reserve Training

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002..................... $83,194,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003.................... 86,522,000
Recommended in the bill............................. 86,522,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002................. +3,328,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003................ ..................
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. Program activities fall
into the following categories:
Initial training.--The direct costs of initial training for
three categories of non-prior service trainees.
Continued training.--The training of officer and enlisted
personnel.
Operation and maintenance of training facilities.--The day-
to-day operation and maintenance of reserve training
facilities.
Administration.--All administrative costs of the reserve
forces program.
The bill includes $86,522,000 for reserve training, which
is the same as the budget estimate and $3,328,000 (4 percent)
above the fiscal year 2002 level. This is expected to support a
Selected Reserve level of 9,000, which is 800 (9.8 percent)
above the level estimated for fiscal year 2002.
Given the level of support provided by reservists not only
in homeland security and national security missions, but also
in support of routine duties, the Committee continues to
strongly support the Coast Guard Reserve. The reserves have
proven to be a force multiplier within the Coast Guard,
augmenting the efficient delivery of Coast Guard service to the
public.
Reservist contribution to homeland security.--The Committee
notes the strong contribution of the Coast Guard Reserves to
our nation's preparedness immediately following last year's
terrorist attacks. Within 48 hours of the attacks, 1,571
reservists were called up, and within thirty days, almost 2,800
were in uniform. Among other duties, these personnel have been
performing harbor patrols; conducting port security operations
around terrorist detention facilities in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba;
serving as sea marshals; and serving as special agents
performing law enforcement missions and collecting
intelligence. In contrast to civilians and active duty
personnel, reservists leave their full-time jobs, often on a
moment's notice and sometimes at reduced pay, to serve their
country for an undefined period of time. The Committee
recognizes and appreciates the special sacrifices made by the
reserve force and their families over the past year.
Reimbursement to ``Operating expenses''.--The
recommendation discontinues the provision, carried for several
years, limiting the amount of ``Reserve training'' funds which
may be transferred to ``Operating expenses''. The Committee
notes that the active duty and reserve elements of the Coast
Guard have reached a new agreement on the level of appropriate
``Reserve training'' support for the Coast Guard's active duty
operating budget. For this reason, the Committee bill
eliminates the restrictions. However, the Committee still seeks
to ensure that the reserves are not assessed excessive charge-
backs to the Coast Guard operating budget, and will monitor the
situation over the coming year.

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002..................... $20,222,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003.................... 22,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................. 21,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002................. +778,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003................ ..................
The bill includes $21,000,000 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, $3,500,000 is to be derived from the oil spill
liability trust fund, as requested in the budget estimate. This
is $778,000 (3.8 percent) above the amount provided for fiscal
year 2002.
Wood Composites.--The Coast Guard maintains a large
inventory of wood pier and other waterfront structures that
have significant needs for repair and replacement. The Coast
Guard and the Federal Highway Administration are participating
in a pilot project with the University of Maine to test whether
wood composites will reduce maintenance costs and extend the
useful life of waterfront structures. Within the funds
provided, $1,000,000 is to support the continued development,
demonstration and evaluation of engineered wood composites at
Coast Guard facilities, including Coast Guard stations in
Jonesport and Southwest Harbor, Maine.

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible
for the safety and development of civil aviation and the
evolution of a national system of airports. The Federal
Government's regulatory role in civil aviation began with the
creation of an Aeronautics Branch within the Department of
Commerce pursuant to the Air Commerce Act of 1926. This Act
instructed the Secretary of Commerce to foster air commerce;
designate and establish airways; establish, operate, and
maintain aids to navigation; arrange for research and
development to improve such aids; issue airworthiness
certificates for aircraft and major aircraft components; and
investigate civil aviation accidents. In the Civil Aeronautics
Act of 1938, these activities were subsumed into a new,
independent agency named the Civil Aeronautics Authority. After
further administrative reorganizations, Congress streamlined
regulatory oversight in 1957 with the creation of two separate
agencies, the Federal Aviation Agency and the Civil Aeronautics
Board. When the Department of Transportation began its
operations on April 1, 1967, the Federal Aviation Agency was
renamed the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and became
one of several modal administrations within the department. The
Civil Aeronautics Board was later phased out with enactment of
the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, and ceased to exist at
the end of 1984. FAA's mission expanded in 1995 with the
transfer of the Office of Commercial Space Transportation from
the Office of the Secretary, and decreased in December 2001
with the transfer of civil aviation security activities to the
new Transportation Security Administration.

Summary of Fiscal Year 2003 Program

The recommended program level for the FAA for fiscal year
2003 totals $13,599,225,000, including a $3,400,000,000
limitation on the use of contract authority. This is
$87,445,000 (less than one percent) above the fiscal year 2002
enacted level and $17,000,000 (less than one percent) above the
President's request. This bill complies with the guaranteed
funding levels of Public Law 106-181.
Most of the activities of the FAA will be funded with
direct appropriations in fiscal year 2003. 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 continuation of the aviation ticket tax and other
related aviation excise taxes throughout fiscal year 2003 and
assumes no new user fees.
The following table summarizes the fiscal year 2002 program
levels, the fiscal year 2003 program requests, and the
Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Program --------------------------------------------------------
2002 enacted 2003 estimate 2003 recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations............................................. $7,119,000,000 $7,077,203,000 $7,060,203,000
Facilities and equipment............................... 3,007,500,000 2,981,022,000 2,981,022,000
Research, engineering and development.................. 245,000,000 124,000,000 138,000,000
Grants-in-aid for airports (AIP) \1\................... 3,173,280,000 3,400,000,000 3,400,000,000
Small community air service \2\........................ ................. ................. 20,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................ 13,511,780,000 13,582,225,000 13,599,225,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Limitation on obligations from contract authority.
\2\ $20,000,000 provided in fiscal year 2002 under ``Grants-in-aid for airports''.

Operations

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 \1\................. $7,119,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003.................... 7,077,203,000
Recommended in the bill............................. 7,060,203,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002................. -58,797,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003................ -17,000,000

\1\ Includes $200,000,000 in supplemental emergency appropriations for
civil aviation security activities and $42,000,000 in other
supplemental emergency appropriations.

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,
international, medical, engineering and development programs as
well as policy oversight and overall management functions.
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 acquisition, research and development
programs; (6) headquarters, administration and other staff
offices; and (7) development, printing, and distribution of
aeronautical charts used by the flying public.

Committee Recommendation

The Committee recommends $7,060,203,000 for FAA operations,
a decrease of $58,797,000 below the level provided for fiscal
year 2002 and $17,000,000 (less than one percent) below the
President's budget request. When funds for civil aviation
security activities are excluded from the calculation, the bill
provides an increase of $282,200,000 (4.1 percent) over fiscal
year 2002. Civil aviation security activities were funded under
FAA in fiscal year 2002 but were transferred to the
Transportation Security Administration in the Aviation and
Transportation Security Act.
A breakdown of the fiscal year 2002 enacted level, the
fiscal year 2003 budget estimate, and the Committee
recommendation by budget activity is as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 Fiscal year 2003 Committee
enacted \1\ estimate \2\ recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air traffic services................................... $5,446,872,000 $5,697,537,000 $5,741,309,000
Aviation regulation and certification.................. 767,649,000 833,967,000 826,020,000
Civil aviation security................................ 149,605,000 ................. -60,000
Research and acquisitions.............................. 195,559,000 207,600,000 207,600,000
Commercial space transportation........................ 12,416,000 12,325,000 12,325,000
Regions and center operations.......................... 85,735,000 82,192,000 83,392,000
Human resources........................................ 69,282,000 80,260,000 65,808,000
Financial services..................................... 50,178,000 48,782,000 46,782,000
Staff offices.......................................... 108,704,000 84,890,000 81,840,000
Information services................................... ................. 29,650,000 29,650,000
Accountwide adjustments................................ ................. ................. -34,463,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 6,886,000,000 7,077,203,000 7,060,203,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes TASC reductions of $2,820,000 and supplemental appropriations totaling $243,000,000.
\2\ Excludes CSRS/FEHBP accruals.

USER FEES

The bill assumes the collection of no additional user fees
in fiscal year 2003 that were not Congressionally authorized
for collection during fiscal year 2002. The FAA estimates that
$30,000,000 in overflight user fees will be collected during
fiscal year 2003. However, these funds will not be available to
augment the FAA's budget, since under current law, these
receipts must be transferred to the Office of the Secretary for
the Essential Air Service and Rural Airports program. As
required by statute, should the FAA experience a shortfall in
overflight fee collections, the agency is required to transfer
its own budgetary resources to maintain a $50,000,000 level for
the EAS program during fiscal year 2003. Any shortfall should
be funded from the ``Facilities and equipment'' appropriation.

TRUST FUND SHARE OF FAA BUDGET

The bill derives $3,585,068,000 of the total appropriation
from the airport and airway trust fund, consistent with current
law and the budget estimate. The balance of the appropriation
will be drawn from the general fund of the Treasury. Under
these provisions, only 50.8 percent of the FAA's operating
costs will be borne by air travelers and industries using those
services. The remaining 49.2 percent will be borne by the
general taxpayer, regardless of whether they directly utilize
FAA services.
State of the airport and airway trust fund.--The Committee
is greatly concerned over the deteriorating financial status of
the airport and airway trust fund, and the implications this
has for future FAA budgets. One year ago, FAA projected
revenues to the trust fund of approximately $85 billion over
the fiscal year 2002--2007 time period. After the terrorist
attacks of last year and the loss of significant high-end
business fares, the current projection of revenues over that
time period is $67.9 billion. This represents a loss of $17.1
billion, or twenty percent, to the trust fund. FAA estimates
that a no-growth budget over this time period would cost
approximately $87 billion, which is now substantially above the
revenue estimates. While the general fund could be tapped to
address the shortfall, as the Inspector General testified this
year, ``these additional requirements come at a time when the
general fund is already supporting vastly expanded fiscal needs
throughout the Federal Government and underscore the urgency
for FAA to begin operating more cost-effectively''. The
Committee notes that DOT has the highest salary costs of any
cabinet-level department, and these costs are largely driven by
FAA. For example, average staff year costs at the agency in
fiscal year 2003 are estimated at $117,630. In addition, the
Congress and FAA have relatively little budget flexibility
under current law, which requires the appropriations committees
to set aside certain funding levels for FAA's capital and grant
programs. Because of this, funding increases for FAA's
operating budget must necessarily come at the expense of other
critical transportation programs such as the Coast Guard and
Transportation Security Administration, at a time when revenues
designed to support those activities are lower than previously
estimated.
When trust fund revenues were higher than appropriations
for capital programs, a consensus emerged within the Congress
to guarantee the spending of trust fund revenues, and programs
were significantly expanded. Now the reverse has occurred--
trust fund revenues are down--and the agency must look inward
to address new budget realities. While the Committee will be
flexible in evaluating the need for greater general fund
contributions to FAA's operating budget, the Committee has long
held that the large majority of those costs should be borne by
the traveling public which utilize FAA's services directly.
Over the next year, FAA is strongly encouraged to review its
operating cost structure and aggressively seek productivity and
efficiency gains wherever possible. In addition, the Committee
encourages the legislative committees of the Congress to be
mindful of the deteriorated status of the trust fund, and
provide greater flexibility to the agency and the
appropriations committees in allocating future funds to the
FAA.

FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION ACT

The Committee is concerned that FAA's workers' compensation
caseload and costs, authorized under the Federal Employees'
Compensation Act, continue to rise. FAA's cost for workers
compensation is estimated at $86,365,000 in fiscal year 2003,
to address 3,706 cases. The average payment for FAA employees
is estimated at $45,767, which is 67 percent above the
government-wide average. Because of these high costs, the
Committee encourages the department and FAA to review the
workers compensation program to determine whether better
management could reduce the number of cases and overall costs.
The Committee's specific recommendations by budget activity
are discussed below.

AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES

The recommendation includes $5,741,309,000 for air traffic
services, an increase of $294,437,000 (5.4 percent) above the
fiscal year 2002 enacted level and $43,772,000 above the budget
estimate. Adjustments to the budget estimate are discussed
below.
Spring/summer 2003.--The Committee recommends half the
proposed increase of $6,512,000 for initiatives aimed at
reducing air travel delays in the spring and summer of 2003.
After massive delays in the year 2000, FAA began special
activities, including training and weather prediction, to
mitigate these problems. In fiscal year 2002, this activity was
funded at $27,212,000. The Committee believes that, given the
slowdown in air travel, a lesser rate of increase is justified
next year.
Operational evolution plan.--The recommendation deletes
$11,116,000 of proposed activities under this heading,
including $6,107,000 requested to reduce the backlog of
building maintenance needs and meet facility requirements of
the Occupational Health and Safety Administration. These
requirements have little to do with FAA's operational evolution
plan, and if truly needed, should be accomplished through a
similar program funded under ``Facilities and equipment'', for
which adequate funds are provided in this bill. The bill also
deletes funds for satellite navigation
(-$3,191,000), air traffic control procedural modeling
(-$1,500,000), and GPS direction finding (-$318,000) due to
lack of justification.
National airspace redesign.--The bill includes $40,343,000
for national airspace redesign, an increase of $19,843,000
(96.8 percent) above the level provided for fiscal year 2002
and $5,357,000 below the budget estimate. Of the funds
provided, $8,500,000 is solely for airspace redesign activities
in the New York/New Jersey metropolitan area.
The Committee directs FAA to submit quarterly reports on
the New Jersey/New York airspace redesign effort, including
funds expended to date; progress to date; and the schedule for
completing and implementing the project. The report should
include details on all planned components and elements of the
redesign project, including details on any ocean routing
modeling that has been conducted. The following table compares
the fiscal year 2002 enacted level to the budget estimate and
the Committee recommendation:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Activity FY 2002 enacted Budget estimate recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA headquarters.................................... $2,109,316 $9,525,798 6,000,000
Alaska region....................................... 76,178 595,200 595,200
Central region...................................... 531,858 3,212,346 3,212,346
Eastern region...................................... 12,500,000 8,500,000 8,500,000
Great Lakes region.................................. 1,421,858 5,930,423 5,930,423
New England region.................................. 131,358 1,594,619 1,594,619
Northwest mountain region........................... 442,858 1,616,650 1,616,650
Southern region..................................... 1,332,858 5,069,034 5,069,034
Southwest region.................................... 531,858 866,500 866,500
Western Pacific region.............................. 1,421,858 8,846,501 7,015,299
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total......................................... 20,500,000 45,757,071 40,343,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

National park air tour management plans.-- Public Law 106-
181 requires an air tour operator to submit a management plan
``whenever a person applies for authority to operate a
commercial air tour operation over the park''. In fiscal year
2002, Congress provided $8,200,000 for FAA to begin the review
and approval of air tour management plans for the 54 parks
where such services are currently provided. The same amount is
included in the fiscal year 2003 President's budget. However,
in hearings this year, the FAA indicated that no applications
had been submitted due to OMB's continuing review of the
proposed regulation, and provisions of the law requiring
submission of applications within 90 days of issuance of the
final rule. Given these delays, it is unlikely that FAA will be
able to meet its schedule to have all management plans approved
by the end of fiscal year 2003. Due to these delays, the
Committee provides one-half the requested amount for this
activity.
Training.--The Committee is concerned over the excessive
rate of increase proposed for air traffic training. The
President's budget requested $60,405,000 for this training in
fiscal year 2003, an increase of $15,531,000 (34.6 percent)
over the fiscal year 2002 level. This is three times the rate
of increase experienced for flight standards training, and
represents growth of almost 40 percent in the cost per staff
year in only two years. The Committee believes these training
costs are overstated, and notes that FAA has reprogrammed
training funds several times over the past few years when funds
were desired for other activities. Furthermore, the President's
budget proposes an unexplained reduction of $85,500,000 and 300
staff years in air traffic, which make these training increases
highly questionable. The Committee recommends $50,000,000, an
increase of $5,126,000 (11.4 percent)--the same rate of
increase approved for flight standards.
Air traffic controller proficiency and developmental
training.--The Committee continues to note the importance of
controller training conducted under the existing air traffic
instructional services (ATIS) contract. The FAA's budget
request for fiscal year 2003 included $31,100,000 for these
services. In past years, the agency has reprogrammed funds from
this account, to the detriment of controller training. Within
the $50,000,000 approved for controller training, the Committee
directs FAA to utilize the planned amount of $31,100,000 under
the ATIS contract. This is designated as an item of special
Congressional interest. Any proposed adjustments from the
amount recommended shall be subject to the Congressional
reprogramming process.
NAS handoff.--Once again this year, the FAA has proposed an
accounting gimmick to make its operating budget appear smaller,
a gimmick which the Committee rejected last year and encouraged
the agency not to repeat. FAA's longstanding policy has been to
include funds for maintenance of new systems in the operating
budget, except for the first year after commissioning. During
the first year, when start-up problems are typical, it is
appropriate for funds to be included in the capital budget.
Last year, however, the agency announced a plan to ``stretch''
to two years the length of time maintenance expenses would be
paid from the capital budget. In this way, a portion of the
agency's routine operating expenses can be disguised as a
capital expense, crowding out legitimate capital expenses and
covering up the agency's true operating costs. The Committee is
disappointed that the Administration has repeated this proposal
in fiscal year 2003, especially at a time when the public is
demanding more accurate accounting and fewer gimmicks of
private sector accounting. The Committee believes it is
difficult for the Federal Government to show leadership in the
issue of corporate accounting unless its own books are in
order. As a result, the Committee recommendation transfers
$70,000,000 of NAS handoff maintenance funds from ``Facilities
and equipment'' to this appropriation to more properly reflect
the work being performed. If the agency persists in making this
flawed recommendation next year, the Committee will consider
this performance in its review of the agency's request for
financial management personnel.
Air traffic control supervisory levels.--In fiscal year
2002, Congress directed FAA to restore supervisory air traffic
control positions proposed for elimination in the budget, and
to halt further expansion of the controller-in-charge concept.
Since the expansion began in February 2000, 250 operational
supervisors have been eliminated, raising the supervisory ratio
in this workforce from 7.4/1 to 9.1/1. The agency has clearly
met its obligation to ``move toward'' a ratio of 10/1. Because
of continuing concerns about the controller-in-charge program,
the Committee retains the policy in effect for fiscal year
2002, and directs FAA not to reduce the number of operational
supervisor positions below the level at the time the Department
of Transportation and Related Agencies Act, 2002 was enacted.
FAA advises the Committee that the figure on board at that time
was 1,700.
Staffing reduction.--The President's budget includes a base
reduction of $85,000,000 and 300 staffyears which is not
adequately explained in the justifications. Although a decision
was to have been made in June 2002 on the nature of this
proposal, to date the Committee has received no information
explaining how this large reduction will be accommodated
without harm to essential air traffic services. The budget
justifications indicate that the reduction would be taken by
refusing to fill vacant positions except for those represented
by the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) or
Professional Airways Service Specialists (PASS) bargaining
units. By the Committee's estimate, approximately 25,500 such
positions are represented by these two unions. The Committee is
unclear how such a large reduction can be accommodated among
the balance of air traffic positions, based on attrition
assumptions accompanying the fiscal year 2003 budget, without
harm to air traffic services around the country. Accordingly,
the Committee directs FAA to submit, not later than December 1,
2002, a detailed plan showing how this reduction will be
allocated between the various air traffic offices, with a
description of the impact on air traffic services at those
locations.
Office of the chief operating officer.--Although the
Aviation and Investment Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-
21) established the position of air traffic services chief
operating officer, the agency has never filled this position
and no funds are specifically identified in the budget request
for the position or its supporting office. The Committee
directs that, prior to the filling of any position in such
office other than the chief operating officer, or the filling
or detailing of any position to support the chief operating
officer, the FAA request such funding through the normal
reprogramming process.
Contract tower cost-sharing.--The bill includes $6,000,000
to continue the contract tower cost-sharing program. The
Committee continues to believe this is a valuable program which
provides safety benefits to small communities.
MARC.--The bill includes $2,000,000 to continue operating
support for the Mid-America Aviation Resource Consortium (MARC)
in Minnesota. This program has been funded for many years.
Newark delay reduction initiatives.--The Committee directs
FAA to provide quarterly reports to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations on the status of delay reduction
initiatives in Newark, New Jersey. A similar requirement was in
place for fiscal year 2000.
Contract tower cost-sharing.--The bill includes $6,000,000
to continue the contract tower cost-sharing program. As of July
1, 2002, the following airports were financed through this
important program:

New Century Air Center, KS
Manhattan, KS
Garden City, KS
Central Nebraska/Grand Island, NE
Bolton Field, OH
McKellar-Sipes Regional, TN
Hickory Regional, NC
Concord, NC
Grand Strand/Myrtle Beach, SC
Springdale Municipal, AR
South Lake Tahoe, CA
Williamsport/Lycoming County, PA
Chicago Meigs Field, IL
Lebanon Municipal, NH
Fayetteville, AR
Laughlin/Bullhead City, AZ
Shreveport Downtown, LA
Muncie, IN
Columbus, IN
Bloomington, IN
Henderson, NV
Jefferson City, MO
Latrobe, PA
Victorville, CA
Stillwater, OK
King Salmon, AK
Oneida County, NY
Walla Walla Regional, WA
Macon, GA
Kingston, NC
Elko, NV

Real-time display of air traffic and flight information.--
Within the funds provided for air traffic services, the
recommendation includes $240,000 for air traffic monitor
software for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
This technology is currently used in Los Angeles, San
Francisco, and Louisville, and provides near real-time display
of air traffic and flight information in and around major
airports, which can be accessed via the internet. With this
software, aviation authorities as well as private citizens can
monitor flights to ensure they are following their scheduled
flight paths as well as FAA flight regulations and
restrictions.

AVIATION REGULATION AND CERTIFICATION

The Committee recommends $826,174,000 for aviation
regulation and certification, a reduction of $7,947,000 below
the budget estimate. Reductions to the budget estimate are as
follows:
Safer skies.--The bill includes $10,000,000 for this
activity, an increase of $4,525,000 (82.6 percent) above the
funding provided for fiscal year 2002, but $6,887,000 below the
budget estimate. While the Committee supports this initiative,
a slower rate of growth is justified to fund other priorities.
The Committee encourages FAA to allocate the reduction equally
against commercial aviation and general aviation activities.
International harmonization staff.--The recommendation does
not include the $250,000 requested for five additional staff to
conduct international harmonization activities. More than three
years ago, the Committee directed FAA to submit a five year
plan to improve international aviation safety. Although this
was directed to be submitted not later than February 15, 2000,
the report has still not been received. Until the Committee
receives and reviews this plan, updated to current resources
and world conditions, it is unreasonable to expect additional
funds for staffing in this area.
Drug/alcohol compliance testing.--The Committee
recommendation does not include the proposed increase of
$810,000 and 20 positions for the agency drug and alcohol
testing program. Last year, Congress directed FAA to conduct a
review investigating the validity of the current drug testing
procedures, after Inspector General and other reports raised
concerns over the current practices. This review will not be
completed until fiscal year 2003. The Committee does not
believe additional resources are warranted until evidence is
presented that these concerns are resolved. Furthermore, the
agency's justification for the additional funding makes note of
deficiencies found in an FAA task force report dated January
1999. The Committee has reviewed the task force report, and
concludes that these deficiencies were largely procedural, and
do not require additional funding. For example, the task force
found several cases where unannounced drug testing was
compromised when employees were called at home by managers or
union representatives the day of the test and advised that
testers would be in the facility that day. It also found that,
because tests were almost always conducted during the day, the
night shifts came to be regarded as ``safe havens''--a
procedure undermining the notion of random testing. The task
force also found that disciplinary measures for those employees
caught using drugs or alcohol was inconsistent or nonexistent.
The Committee believes procedural problems such as these need
to be resolved immediately, before additional funds can be
justified. Funding in the bill is the same as the fiscal year
2002 enacted level.
Digital imaging and workflow system.--The Committee is
aware that FAA is implementing a new pilot medical
certification procedure called the aeromedical digital imaging
and workflow system (DIWS). DIWS is intended to expedite the
processing of medical certificates that require direct
authorization from specific FAA personnel. In light of the
immediate benefits that would be realized by both pilots and
the FAA, the Committee encourages the agency to complete
implementation of DIWS no later than fiscal year 2004.
Graphics in notice to airman publications.--The Committee
believes there is potential to improve safety and efficiency by
expanding the use of graphics in notice to airman (NOTAM)
publications, including temporary flight restrictions. The
Committee directs FAA to expand the use of graphics in these
publications wherever feasible during fiscal year 2003.

CIVIL AVIATION SECURITY

The Committee deletes the $6,064,000 proposed for accrual
benefits of former FAA employees now employed by the
Transportation Security Administration as part of the
Committee-wide initiative to deny the accrual proposal. In
addition, the bill deletes the $60,000 assumed in the budget
estimate for the Aviation Security Advisory Committee. Such
expenses, if needed, should now be borne by the Transportation
Security Administration.

RESEARCH AND ACQUISITIONS

The Committee recommends $207,600,000 for research and
acquisitions, the same as the budget estimate.

COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION

The Committee recommends $12,325,000 for commercial space
transportation, the same as the budget estimate.

REGIONS AND CENTER OPERATIONS

The Committee recommends $83,392,000 for regions and center
operations, an increase of $1,200,000 above the budget
estimate. The recommendation restores a proposed reduction in
activities such as runway safety oversight, environmental
reviews, and expedited reviews of proposed new runways at
airports. The Committee believes these are high priority
activities that should not be reduced.

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommends $65,808,000 for human resource
management, a reduction of $14,452,000 below the budget
estimate. Adjustments to the budget estimate are as follows:
Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) surcharge for
administrative costs.--As explained in an earlier section of
this report, the Committee recommendation deletes funds related
to an administrative surcharge for the Department of Labor's
costs to administer activities authorized under the Federal
Employees' Compensation Act (commonly known as worker's
compensation). This results in a reduction of $4,353,000 below
the budget estimate.
Human resource information system.--The Committee
recommendation defers further implementation of the human
resource information system due to weak justification and
higher budgetary priorities. This results in a reduction of
$4,600,000 below the budget estimate.
Strategic alliances.--The Committee recommends $10,000,000
for strategic alliances, a reduction of $5,499,000 below the
budget estimate. The following table compares the budget
estimate to the Committee recommendation for various components
of the strategic alliances budget activity:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Activity Budget estimate recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall effectiveness of HRM $8,697,000 $4,000,000
program........................
Employee assistance program..... 1,550,000 1,550,000
Labor relations................. 4,242,000 4,000,000
Organizational development and 1,010,000 450,000
performance improvement........
---------------------------------------
Total..................... 15,499,000 10,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personnel reform.--The Committee remains concerned that
personnel reform has not achieved many of its original
objectives. For example, the agency was expected to replace the
general schedule personnel and compensation system with one
that would be centered on merit reviews rather than automatic
increases based on cost of living adjustments or time in grade.
It was hoped that this would allow the FAA to reward the
highest performers in the agency and provide incentives for
improvement among weak performers. Unfortunately, while the
agency still has the flexibility to design such a system, the
large majority of pay increases remain automatic in nature. For
example, funds are still included for the government-wide pay
increase, although the agency has the flexibility to base such
awards on merit. More than 12,000 agency employees still
receive automatic within grade increases, even after the agency
has tried to migrate to a performance-based compensation
system. The Committee encourages FAA to review opportunities to
reduce the use of automatic pay raises in the hopes of
providing a stronger linkage between pay and performance within
the agency. In addition, the Committee directs the Office of
Inspector General to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of
FAA's implementation of personnel reform, including the extent
to which the agency has substituted merit-based pay raises for
automatic increases, improved the matching of pay to
performance, and met the other goals of personnel reform.

FINANCIAL SERVICES

The Committee recommends $46,782,000 for the office of
financial services, a reduction of $2,000,000 below the budget
estimate. The Committee is disturbed to hear that the FAA
continues to have problems in contracts management, and fails
to adequately utilize the services of the Defense Contract
Audit Agency to help the agency locate contract savings and
excessive contractor claims. The Committee believes that
greater use of DCAA will lead to savings at the agency and
strongly encourages the FAA, once again, to increase the number
of pre- and post-award contract audits. The recommendation
assumes savings from this increased volume of audits.

STAFF OFFICES

The Committee recommends $81,840,000 for staff offices, a
reduction of $3,050,000 below the budget estimate. The
Committee's review of staffing in the office of the
administrator and deputy administrator and the office of public
affairs indicate several positions which can be eliminated. The
FAA should also look carefully at executive positions detailed
to other federal agencies, to determine whether it would be
appropriate for the receiving agency to provide reimbursement
for those positions. The recommendation includes a reduction of
$400,000 in these areas. Additional adjustments are as follows:
Policy/planning office.--The recommendation includes a
reduction of $1,750,000 in this office, which freezes the
filling of 26 positions which were vacant at the time of this
year's budget hearing. The Committee notes that the staffing of
this office includes 30 economists, of which 6 are economists
studying the aviation industry. The Committee believes that,
given budget constraints, funds to fill these and other vacant
policy and planning positions can be temporarily deferred.
Office of system safety staffing.--The recommendation
includes a reduction of $500,000 in staffing costs for the
office of system safety.
International aviation offices.--The recommendation
includes an additional $500,000 for the operational costs of
FAA's overseas offices. The Committee continues to support the
work of these offices in promoting U.S. aviation safety
interests overseas. Of these funds, $250,000 shall be allocated
to FAA's European office in Brussels, Belgium and $250,000
shall be allocated to the Asia-Pacific office in Singapore.

OFFICE OF INFORMATION SERVICES/CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

The recommendation includes $29,650,000 for the office of
information services, the same as the budget estimate. This is
a new budget activity for fiscal year 2003. Previously, funds
for this office were included under ``Staff offices''.

ACCOUNTWIDE ADJUSTMENTS

The recommendation includes a reduction of $34,463,000 in
accountwide adjustments, as described below:
Staffing adjustment.--The recommendation includes a
reduction of $10,000,000 due to slow hiring in fiscal year
2002. The budget request assumes the continuation of personnel
compensation and benefits for a baseline of 43,865 on board
staff at the end of fiscal year 2002. However, information
submitted for this year's budget hearing indicated that the
agency was 900 short of meeting this goal. Given the delays in
providing supplemental funding and the President's decision not
to release contingent amounts--including funds for FAA's
operating budget--the Committee does not believe FAA will be
able to meet its hiring goals for fiscal year 2002. These
delays indicate a lower budgetary requirement for fiscal year
2003, as costs will not need to be annualized for the full
fiscal year.
Contract maintenance.--The bill includes $134,474,000 for
contract maintenance, a reduction of $21,258,000 below the
budget estimate. Without adequate justification, the budget
estimate included $155,732,000, an increase of 27.6 percent
over the fiscal year 2002 enacted level. The recommendation
includes a 10 percent increase in these costs.
Travel.--For several years, the Committee has been
encouraging FAA to minimize its travel costs. While initial
budgetary estimates appear to be responsive to this request,
the Committee is concerned that end-of-year actual costs are
greatly exceeding the initial estimates. For example, last
year, the agency's estimate of travel costs for fiscal year
2002 was $121,975,000. However, despite a hiring freeze and
serious budget shortfalls in fiscal year 2002, the agency is
now projecting travel expenses of $132,000,000. This comes on
the heels of an $18,115,000 (17.4 percent) increase in agency
travel for fiscal year 2001. This performance causes the
Committee to question the internal controls and monitoring of
travel costs within the agency. The recommendation includes a
reduction of $1,064,000 in travel costs, to encourage the
agency to monitor these costs more effectively.
FAA/DOT library TASC charges.--It is the Committee's
understanding that, despite FAA's proposal to close the FAA
Library due to limited usage, the Transportation Administrative
Service Center has denied this proposal and intends to bill FAA
$2,141,000 in fiscal year 2003 for operations of that library
and FAA's share of funding for the DOT Library in the Nassif
building. The Committee believes TASC managers should be more
responsive to the proposals of its customers, and should
investigate carefully whether, in the age of e-government and
e-commerce, the DOT Library should be downsized or eliminated
entirely. The Committee recommendation does not include the
$2,141,000 budgeted for these activities, and directs FAA not
to pay TASC for such charges.
OST assessments.--Even though the Committee directed two
years ago that assessments only be charged by the office of the
secretary for administrative activities, and not policy
initiatives, a review of recent charges indicates the
department is still not adhering to this direction. For
example, in fiscal year 2000 FAA was charged for an open skies
conference, an international symposium, and the DOT Center for
Climate Change. In fiscal year 2002, FAA is being charged for
an OST delay study ($125,000). These can hardly be classified
as administrative activities. Last year, the Committee directed
FAA not to pay such charges in the future, and to notify the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations if such proposals
are made. However, obviously these improper cross-charges are
still occurring. The FAA is directed, once again, not to fund
policy-related assessments.

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 2003.
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 through 2002.
Aeronautical charting and cartography.--The bill maintains
the provision which prohibits funds in this Act from being used
to conduct aeronautical charting and cartography (AC&C)
activities through the transportation administrative services
center (TASC). Public Law 106-181 authorizes the transfer of
these activities from the Department of Commerce to the FAA, a
move which the Committee supports. The Committee believes this
work should be conducted by the FAA, and not administratively
delegated to the TASC.

Facilities and Equipment

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 \1\.................. $3,007,500,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003..................... 2,981,022,000
Recommended in the bill.............................. 2,981,022,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.................. -33,978,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003................. .................
\1\ Includes rescission of $15,000,000 and emergency supplemental
appropriations totaling $108,500,000.

The Facilities and Equipment (F&E) appropriation is the
principal means for modernizing and improving air traffic
control and airway facilities. The appropriation 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 $2,981,022,000
for this program, an decrease of $33,978,000 (1.1 percent)
below the level provided for fiscal year 2002 and the same as
the budget estimate. The amount proposed is required and
guaranteed by Public Law 106-181. The bill provides that of the
total amount recommended, not to exceed $2,559,904,000 is
available for obligation until September 30, 2005, and
$421,118,000 (the amount for personnel and related expenses) is
available until September 30, 2003. These obligation
availabilities are consistent with past appropriations Acts and
the same as the budget request.
The following table shows the fiscal year 2003 budget
estimate and the Committee recommendation for each of the
projects funded by this appropriation:

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
(in thousands of dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee
estimate recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improve Aviation Safety............... $403,340.0 $484,214.2
Terminal Business Unit............ 141,000.0 151,183.0
Aviation Weather Services 23,440.0 23,440.0
Improvements.....................
Low Level Windshear Alert System 1,600.0 1,600.0
(LLWAS)--Upgrade.................
Aviation Safety Analysis System 21,700.0 15,000.0
(ASAS)...........................
Integrated Flight Quality 500.0 500.0
Assurance (IFQA).................
Safety Performance Analysis 2,100.0 2,100.0
Subsystem (SPAS).................
Performance Enhancement Systems 2,600.0 2,600.0
(PENS)...........................
Safe Flight 21.................... 29,800.0 40,000.0
Advanced Technology Development 41,100.0 43,100.0
and Prototyping..................
Aircraft Related Equipment Program 16,000.0 16,000.0
National Aviation Safety Data 2,000.0 2,000.0
Analysis Center (NASDAC).........
Louisville, KY technology 0.0 10,000.0
demonstration....................
Explosive Detection Technology.... 121,500.0 176,691.2
Improve Efficiency of the Air Traffic 914,185.5 879,885.3
Control System.......................
Terminal Business Unit............ 551,035.5 516,280.3
Aeronautical Data Link (ADL) 33,200.0 33,200.0
Applications.....................
Free Flight Phase 2............... 106,200.0 106,200.0
Air Traffic Management (ATM)...... 13,000.0 13,000.0
Free Flight Phase 1............... 39,900.0 36,600.0
Automated Surface Observing System 12,100.0 12,755.0
(ASOS)...........................
Next Generation Very High 71,100.0 71,100.0
Frequency Air/Ground
Communications System (NEXCOM)...
En Route Automation Program....... 71,050.0 71,050.0
Weather and Radar Processor (WARP) 13,600.0 13,600.0
ATOMS Local Area/Wide Area Network 1,100.0 1,100.0
NAS Management Automation Program 1,990.0 0.0
(NASMAP).........................
New York Integrated Control 0.0 5,000.0
Complex..........................
Increase Capacity of the NAS.......... 353,500.0 394,875.0
Navigation and Landing Aids....... 249,800.0 291,175.0
Oceanic Automation System......... 87,400.0 87,400.0
Gulf of Mexico Offshore Program... 2,300.0 2,300.0
Voice Switching and Control System 14,000.0 14,000.0
(VSCS)...........................
Imrpove Reliability of the NAS.... 443,410.0 434,010.0
Guam Center Radar Approach Control 5,000.0 5,000.0
(CERAP)--Relocate................
Terminal Voice Switch Replacement/ 6,200.0 6,200.0
Enhanced TVS.....................
Airport Cable Loop Systems-- 4,000.0 4,000.0
Sustained Support................
En Route Automation Program....... 142,800.0 142,800.0
ARTCC Building Improvements/Plant 40,200.0 40,200.0
Improvements.....................
Air Traffic Management (ATM)...... 24,500.0 24,500.0
Critical Telecommunication Support 1,000.0 1,000.0
FAA Telecommunications Infrasturce 46,600.0 46,600.0
Air/Ground Communications 22,800.0 22,800.0
Infrasturce......................
Voice Recorder Replacement Program 3,300.0 7,000.0
(VRRP)...........................
NAS Infrastructure Management 29,100.0 16,000.0
System (NIMS)....................
Flight Service Station (FSS) 5,700.0 5,700.0
Modernization....................
FSAS Operational and 19,710.0 19,710.0
Supportability Implementation
System (OASIS)...................
Weather Message Switching Ctr 2,000.0 2,000.0
Replacement (WMSCR)..............
Flight Service Station Switch 13,200.0 13,200.0
Modernization....................
Alaskan NAS Interfacility 2,900.0 2,900.0
Communications System (ANICS)....
Electrical Power Systems--Sustain/ 50,700.0 50,700.0
Support..........................
NAS Recovery Communications (RCOM) 9,400.0 9,400.0
Aeronautical Center Infrastructure 11,700.0 11,700.0
Modernization....................
Frequency and Spectrum Engineering 2,600.0 2,600.0
Improve the Efficiency of Mission 444,019.5 444,919.5
Support..............................
NAS Improvement of System Support 2,700.0 2,700.0
Laboratory.......................
Technical Center Facilities....... 12,000.0 12,000.0
Technical Center Building and 3,000.0 3,000.0
Plant Support....................
En Route Communications and 1,058.0 1.058.0
Control Facilities Improvements..
DOD/FAA Facilities Transfer....... 1,200.0 1,200.0
Terminal Communications--Improve.. 1,249.3 1,249.3
Flight Service Facilities 1,223.2 1,223.2
Improvement......................
Navigation and Landing Aids-- 5,034.0 5,034.0
Improve..........................
FAA Buildings and Equipment....... 11,000.0 11,000.0
Air Navigational Aids and ATC 2,100.0 2,100.0
Facilities (Local Projects)......
Modernization..................... 2,800.0 2,800.0
Information Technology Integration 1,600.0 1,600.0
Operational Data Management System 10,300.0 3,000.0
(ODMS)...........................
Logistics Support Systems and 9,300.0 5,000.0
Facilities (LSSF)................
Test Equipment--Maintenance 1,700.0 1,700.0
Support for Replacement..........
Facility Security Risk Management. 37,300.0 25,000.0
Information Security.............. 13,291.0 13,291.0
Distance Learning................. 1,300.0 1,300.0
Natioal Airspace System (NAS) 2,300.0 2,300.0
Training Facilities..............
System Engineering and Development 25,800.0 25,800.0
Support..........................
Program Support Leases............ 38,400.0 38,400.0
Logistics Support Services (LSS).. 7,500.0 7,500.0
Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center-- 14,600.0 14,600.0
Leases...........................
In-Plant NAS Contract Support 2,900.0 2,900.0
Services.........................
Transition Engineering Support.... 39,000.0 37,000.0
FAA Corporate Systems Architecture 1,000.0 1,000.0
Technical Support Services 46,700.0 46,700.0
Contract (TSSC)..................
Resource Tracking Program (RTP)... 3,700.0 3,700.0
Center for Advanced Aviation 81,364.0 81,364.0
Systems Development..............
Operational Evolution Plan........ 1,000.0 1,000.0
NAS Facilities OSHA and 32,600.0 28,400.0
Environmental Standards
Compliance.......................
Fuel Storage Tank Replacement and 8,500.0 8,500.0
Monitoring.......................
Hazardous Materials Management.... 20,500.0 20,500.0
Research Aircraft Replacement..... 0.0 25,000.0
Personnel, Compensation, Benefits, and 441,118.0 421,118.0
Travel...............................
Personnel and Related Expenses.... 441,118.0 421,118.0
Accountwide Adjustments............... -18,551.0 -70,000.0
NAS Handoff--Transfer to Operating 0.0 -70,000.0
Expenses.........................
CSRS/FEHBP accruals............... -18,551.0 0.0
---------------------------------
Total........................... 2,981,022.0 2,981,022.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

This year, the FAA has proposed a new budget structure for
this appropriation. On the one hand, this proposal allows one
to more clearly monitor the allocation of resources among
important missions of the agency such as safety and system
efficiency. However, the elimination of categories designed to
focus attention on the development status and technical risk of
programs raises the possibility that more programs will proceed
into the acquisition phase when they are not ready to do so.
This type of inadequate management control was a significant
failure of the agency in past years, the legacy of which should
not be forgotten by the agency. While the Committee has
approved the new budgetary structure, the Committee is mindful
of the risks in this new system, and will monitor the situation
closely.

IMPROVE AVIATION SAFETY

The Committee recommends $484,214,200 for programs and
activities designed to improve aviation safety. This is
$78,874,200 more than the budget estimate. The Committee
continues to place its highest priority on aviation safety
programs, and has reallocated funding from other areas of FAA's
capital budget to reflect this priority.
Terminal business unit.--The Committee recommends
$151,183,000 for programs under this budget activity of the
terminal business unit. The following table compares the
Committee recommendation to the budget estimate:

Airport movement areas safety system (AMASS).--The
recommendation defers a portion of pre-planned product
improvements and human factors modifications, a reduction of
$7,117,000 below the budget estimate.
ASDE-X.--The recommendation provides $109,600,000 for
continued acquisition and installation of low-cost ASDE
systems, an increase of $14,300,000 above the budget estimate.
The following sites are included for funding:

St. Louis, MO
Los Angeles, CA
Dallas, TX
Chicago, IL
Louisville, KY
Memphis, TN
Atlanta, GA
Houston, TX (Hobby)
Hartford, CT
San Jose, CA
San Antonio, TX
Sacramento, CA
Ft. Lauderdale/Hollywood, FL
Honolulu, HI
Oakland, CA
Washington Dulles, VA

The Committee continues to support the ASDE-X system, and
encourages FAA to consider modifications of the system which
would allow cost-effective deployment of the system at medium-
and small-sized airports. The original premise of this program
was to expand the applications of runway incursion technology,
not just replace the aging ASDE-3 radar system at major
international airports. The Committee also notes that a large
percentage of runway incursions occur at medium and small
airports.
Aviation safety analysis system.--This request includes 17
separate ADP subsystem upgrades in the areas of aviation
medicine, safety, and security. The recommendation deletes or
defers low priority ADP upgrades which can be phased more
slowly in order to fund higher priority activities. The
Committee's recommendation includes no funding for the joint
vulnerability analysis system. If worthwhile, this activity
should be requested by the Transportation Security
Administration.
Safe flight 21.--The Committee recommends $40,000,000, an
increase of $10,200,000 above the budget estimate. Of the funds
provided, $18,600,000 is for the Ohio River Valley Project,
$19,900,000 is for Project Capstone; and $1,500,000 is for
development of standards for automatic dependent surveillance-
broadcast (ADS-B).
Advanced technology development and prototyping.--The
Committee recommends $43,100,000, to be distributed as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee
estimate recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Runway incursion...................... $6,700,000 $6,700,000
Aviation system capacity improvement.. 6,300,000 4,000,000
Separation standards.................. 2,200,000 2,200,000
Airspace management laboratory........ 4,600,000 4,600,000
GA/vertical flight technology......... 1,000,000 1,000,000
Operational concept validation........ 2,500,000 --
Software engineering.................. 1,000,000 1,000,000
NAS requirements development.......... 3,000,000 --
WAAS.................................. 3,100,000 3,100,000
LAAS.................................. 2,800,000 2,800,000
Domestic RVSM......................... 2,200,000 4,200,000
Development system assurance.......... 2,700,000 --
Safer skies........................... 3,000,000 --
Lithium technologies.................. -- 1,000,000
Phased array radar technology......... ............... 3,000,000
Airport research...................... ............... 7,500,000
Fogeye................................ ............... 2,000,000
---------------------------------
Total........................... 41,100,000 43,100,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aviation system capacity improvement.--The recommendation
reduces funding for several studies. The Committee believes
that some of these activities, such as development of
performance measures for the air traffic system and expansion
of data collection efforts for performance measurement, can and
should be conducted as a routine management expense of the
agency through its operating budget, and not as a capital
expense.
Unjustified requests.--The Committee has deleted funds for
``operational concept validation'' (-$2,500,000) and
``development system assurance'' (-$2,700,000) due to lack of
justification.
NAS requirements development.--The Committee deletes the
$3,000,000 requested for NAS requirements development, and
suggests the agency pursue this type of activity through air
traffic requirements activities funded in the operating budget.
Domestic reduced vertical separation minima.--The Committee
recommends $4,200,000 for domestic reduced vertical separation
minima (RVSM). The additional $2,000,000 provided is for final
installation of a specialized ground-based system to estimate
the geometric height of aircraft. Installations should be
located at sites in the United States where there is a high
volume of general aviation aircraft being tested, flown, and
serviced.
Safer skies.--The recommendation deletes the $3,000,000
requested for this activity. Funding of $10,000,000 is provided
for this project under FAA ``Operations''. The Committee
believes this is sufficient to sustain this effort in fiscal
year 2003.
Lithium technologies.--The recommendation includes
$1,000,000 for the deployment of lithium technologies to
prevent and mitigate alkali-silica reactivity.
Phased array radar technology.--The bill includes
$3,000,000 to continue the collaborative effort between FAA and
NOAA's National Severe Storms Laboratory to continue research
and testing of phased array radar technology and to incorporate
airport/aircraft tracking and weather information. This is the
same level of funding as provided for each of the past two
fiscal years.
Airport research.--The recommendation includes $7,500,000
for airport-related technology research. This is essentially
the same as the $7,457,000 provided for fiscal year 2002. The
budget requested an increase to $16,429,000, funded out of
``Grants-in-aid for airports''. The Committee notes that
research is not an authorized use of grants-in-aid funds, and
believes this work is more appropriately funded under this
appropriation.
Fogeye.--The recommendation includes $2,000,000 to continue
evaluation of emerging technology, known as fogeye, which
utilizes ultraviolet light, in the solar-blind spectrum, to
assist in low visibility landings and prevent runway
incursions. An appropriation of $1,000,000 was made for this
assessment in fiscal year 2002. An evaluation of this
technology by the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center
dated September 5, 2002 stated: ``The conclusions thus far are
the technology has considerable merit, and therefore the FogEye
assessments should continue, as planned, to determine the most
attractive and effective aviation applications''.
Louisville, KY technology demonstration.--The bill includes
$10,000,000 to continue air traffic control technology
demonstration activities at the Louisville International
Airport in Kentucky. Funds will be utilized to integrate ADS-B
technology into the common ARTS IIIE infrastructure, install a
surface movement management system, acquire a laser-directed
radar system for enhanced wake vortex research, develop
procedures for continuous deceleration approaches, install an
infrared perimeter security system, and provide for the initial
installation of ADS-B and moving map displays in Kentucky Air
National Guard C-130 aircraft. The continued integrated
demonstration and deployment of these new technologies will
provide valuable insights into improved safety, security, and
efficiency of the national airspace system.
Explosive detection technology.--The recommendation
includes $176,691,200 for explosive detection systems, to be
transferred to the Transportation Security Administration. This
is $55,191,200 more than the budget estimate.

IMPROVE EFFICIENCY OF THE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM

The Committee recommends $879,885,300 for programs and
activities designed to improve the efficiency of the air
traffic control system. This is $39,300,000 below the budget
estimate.
Terminal business unit.--The Committee recommends
$516,280,300 for programs under this budget activity of the
terminal business unit. The following table compares the
Committee recommendation to the budget estimate:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Budget estimate recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terminal automation program (STARS)... $166,000,000 $151,200,000
ATCBI-6............................... 47,100,000 35,000,000
ATC en route radar facilities 3,000,000 3,000,000
improvements.........................
Terminal ATC facilities replacement... 108,600,000 124,100,000
ATC/TRACON facilities improvement..... 52,755,192 44,000,000
Potomac TRACON........................ 2,700,000 2,700,000
Northern California TRACON............ 200,000 200,000
Dallas/Fort Worth TRACON.............. 1,600,000 1,600,000
Terminal digital radar (ASR-11)....... 123,400,000 80,000,000
ASR-9 SLEP............................ 23,000,000 23,000,000
Mode S provide........................ 3,000,000 3,000,000
Terminal applied engineering.......... 8,200,000 4,000,000
Precision runway monitors............. 1,000,000 19,000,000
Houston area air traffic system....... 6,000,000 6,000,000
Terminal ASR improvements............. 1,380,304 1,380,300
PCS moves............................. 3,100,000 3,100,000
Transponder landing system (TLS)...... ............... 15,000,000
---------------------------------
Total........................... 551,035,496 516,280,300
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Standard terminal automation replacement system (STARS).--
The recommendation provides $151,200,000 for continued
implementation of the STARS program. The reduction would defer
some of the planned growth in system upgrades.
ATC beacon interrogator-6 (ATCBI-6).--The recommendation
provides $35,000,000, a reduction of $12,100,000.
Terminal ATC facilities replacement.--The Committee
recommends $123,100,000, to be distributed as follows:

Pago Pago, American Samoa............................... $175,000
Baltimore, MD........................................... 2,088,581
Dulles International Airport, VA........................ 600,000
Deer Valley, AZ......................................... 803,196
Memphis, TN............................................. 1,147,000
Portland, OR (Tracon)................................... 5,500,000
Addison Field, TX....................................... 5,700,000
Reno, NV................................................ 8,349,000
Fort Wayne, IN.......................................... 3,539,000
Newport News, VA........................................ 6,400,000
LaGuardia, NY........................................... 9,460,000
St. Louis, MD (Tracon).................................. 1,500,000
Corpus Christi, TX...................................... 700,000
Beaumont, TX............................................ 1,000,000
Seattle, WA............................................. 550,000
Seattle, WA (Tracon).................................... 4,782,701
Salina, KS.............................................. 500,000
Newark, NJ.............................................. 3,000,000
Port Columbus, OH....................................... 2,100,000
Grand Canyon, AZ........................................ 255,898
Savannah, GA............................................ 919,190
Newburgh, NY............................................ 2,065,000
Richmond, VA............................................ 550,000
Vero Beach, FL.......................................... 878,775
Everett, WA............................................. 925,000
Roanoke, VA............................................. 550,000
Merrimack, NH (BCT)..................................... 4,700,000
Phoenix, AZ............................................. 14,107,919
Manchester, NH.......................................... 943,609
Wilkes-Barre, PA........................................ 2,000,000
Topeka, KS.............................................. 1,690,131
Billings, MT............................................ 2,120,000
McCarran Intl, NV....................................... 4,000,000
Provo Municipal, NV..................................... 1,000,000
St. Louis Downtown, MO.................................. 4,000,000
North Bend Municipal, OR................................ 1,500,000
Reno/Tahoe Intl, NV..................................... 5,000,000
Chippewa Valley Regional WI............................. 7,000,000
Wittman Regional, WI.................................... 5,000,000
Double Eagle II, NM..................................... 2,000,000
Kalamazoo/Battle Creek, MI.............................. 2,000,000
Columbia Metropolitan, SC............................... 2,000,000

ATC/Tracon facilities improvement.--The recommendation
includes a reduction of $3,700,000 in regional studies for
possible facility consolidations and $5,000,000 in facilities
improvements to accommodate implementation of the STARS system.
The Committee believes the $24,744,800 remaining for STARS
facility upgrades is sufficient to address high priority sites
next year.
Terminal digital radar (ASR-11).--The Committee recommends
$80,000,000 for the troubled terminal digital radar (ASR-11)
program, a reduction of $43,400,000 below the budget estimate
but $15,000,000 above the amount provided for fiscal year 2002.
The FAA has not provided the Committee with convincing evidence
that this program's substantial development problems have been
resolved.
Terminal applied engineering.--The Committee recommends
$4,000,000, the same level as provided for fiscal year 2002.
Precision runway monitors.--The Committee recommends
$19,000,000, an increase of $18,000,000 above the budget
estimate. Currently, precision runway monitors are installed at
international airports in Minneapolis-St. Paul, St. Louis, and
Philadelphia. Two other systems are expected to be commissioned
during fiscal year 2002, in New York City (John F. Kennedy
International) and San Francisco. The system now being
installed in San Francisco was originally scheduled for
installation at Atlanta. However, due to delays in construction
of the new runway in Atlanta, the FAA agreed to re-site this
radar system in San Francisco, and authorized manufacture of an
additional system for Atlanta. However, since that time, the
requirement for a PRM system in Atlanta has slipped again,
until at least the year 2005. For this reason, the Committee
expects the FAA to install the system currently being
manufactured at the Cleveland Hopkins International Airport in
Ohio. Funding is included in this recommendation for those
activities. In addition, the bill includes funding for the
acquisition of three additional PRM systems, one of which is to
be installed at Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport in
Georgia. In past years, the Committee has opposed the
acquisition of small quantities of this system due to its high
unit cost. The Committee is pleased that the manufacturer has
been able to reduce these unit costs, making further
acquisition affordable.
Transponder landing system.--The Committee recommends
$15,000,000, to be distributed as follows:

Location Amount
Minden-Tahoe Airport, NV................................ $2,100,000
Omak Airport, WA........................................ 2,100,000
Richland Airport, WA.................................... 2,100,000
Truckee Tahoe Airport CA................................ 2,100,000
Driggs Reed Memorial, ID................................ 2,100,000
Sandpoint Airport, ID................................... 2,100,000
LaGrande/Union County, OR............................... 2,100,000
Installation of prior systems........................... 300,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 15,000,000

Free flight phase one.--A reduction of $3,300,000 is
recommended to fund other budgetary priorities. The Committee
directs that none of this reduction shall be allocated to the
CTAS traffic management advisor--single center (TMA-SC)
program.
Automated surface observing system (ASOS).--The Committee
recommends an additional $655,000, to provide advanced weather
observing systems in the following locations:

Location Amount
West Houston Airport, TX................................ $150,000
Driggs Reed Memorial Airport, ID........................ 150,000
Indiana Freeman Municipal Airport, IN................... 355,000

National airspace management automation program (NASMAP).--
The Committee recommends deferral of the $1,900,000 requested
for this program due to weak justification and the need to fund
higher priorities with clearer goals.
New York integrated control complex.--The bill includes
$5,000,000 for initial design of an integrated air traffic
control complex in the New York City area. Such a facility
could reduce air traffic service inefficiencies currently
experienced with en route and radar facilities in different
locations.

INCREASE CAPACITY OF THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

The Committee recommends $394,875,000 for programs and
activities designed to increase the capacity of the national
airspace system. This is $41,375,000 more than the budget
estimate.
Navigation and landing aids.--The recommendation includes
$291,175,000 for navigation and landing aids. A table comparing
the budget estimate to the Committee recommendation for these
activities is shown below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Budget estimate recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local area augmentation system........ $55,800,000 $55,800,000
Wide area augmentation system......... 110,500,000 98,900,000
VOR/DME............................... 2,200,000 2,200,000
ALSIP................................. 3,200,000 17,575,000
ILS establishment..................... 23,500,000 53,500,000
Runway visual range................... 7,200,000 13,000,000
DME sustain........................... 2,100,000 2,100,000
NDB sustain........................... 1,200,000 1,200,000
Visual navaids (PAPI/REIL)............ 8,900,000 8,900,000
VASI replace with PAPI................ 6,300,000 6,300,000
IAPA.................................. 6,900,000 3,700,000
Navigation & landing aids--SLEP....... 3,000,000 3,000,000
Loran-C............................... 13,000,000 25,000,000
Nationwide differential GPS........... 6,000,000 0
---------------------------------
Total........................... 249,800,000 291,175,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wide area augmentation system (WAAS).-- The reduction of
$11,600,000 is based upon program savings realized earlier this
year when program requirements were changed by the FAA.
Approach lighting system improvement program (ALSIP).--The
recommended funding is to be distributed as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Activity Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide........................ Items in budget $3,200,000
estimate.
Jackson Airport, KY............... Lighting............ 175,000
Somerset Airport, KY.............. Runway lighting..... 500,000
Bowman Field, KY.................. Airfield lighting... 600,000
Max Westheimer, OK................ Install MALSR....... 1,000,000
Nationwide........................ MALSR acquisition... 7,000,000
Nationwide........................ PAPI acquisition.... 3,000,000
Nationwide........................ ALSF-2 acquisition.. 2,000,000
Newark International, NJ.......... PAPI installation, 100,000
runway 22L.
---------------
Total....................... .................... 17,575,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Acquisition of medium-intensity approach lighting system
with runway indicator lights.--For many years, the FAA has been
acquiring medium-intensity approach lighting systems with
runway indicator lights. Originally sole-sourced, this product
now has multiple manufacturing candidates. The Committee
encourages FAA to consider recompeting this product, in order
to assure the agency the opportunity for cost savings.
Instrument landing system establishment.--The
recommendation includes $53,500,000 for establishment of
instrument landing systems (ILS). Funding includes an
additional $7,325,000 for the national ILS replacement program
and $22,675,000 for specific ILS locations as shown below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Activity Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Arthur-Fayette Field, AL.. Install ILS......... $500,000
Rickenbacker Intl, OH............. Install ILS......... 750,000
Stuttgart Municipal, AR........... Purchase and install 2,000,000
ILS.
Plymouth Municipal, MA............ Install ILS on 600,000
runway 06.
Lambert St. Louis Intl, MO........ Navigation aids..... 3,750,000
Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky, OH.. Navigation aids for 4,000,000
new runway.
Pangborn Memorial, WA............. Install ILS......... 2,100,000
Winder Barrow Airport, GA......... Purchase and install 500,000
ILS.
LaGuardia International, NY....... Purchase/install 1,000,000
glideslope.
Talladega Municipal, AL........... Purchase/install ILS 500,000
Auburn-Opelika Municipal, AL...... Purchase/install 750,000
glideslope.
Mena Intermountain Regional, AR... Install, Loc/Gldslp; 1,225,000
NDB; OM.
Napa County Airport, CA........... Install glideslope.. 1,000,000
Hayward (Sawyer County), WI....... Purchase/install ILS 2,000,000
Robert Gray AAF, TX............... Purchase/install ILS 2,000,000
---------------
Total....................... .................... 22,675,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Runway visual range (RVR).--The Committee recommends
$13,000,000, an increase of $5,800,000 above the budget
estimate. The additional funds are for continued acquisition of
next generation RVR systems ($5,000,000) and for installation
of a runway visual range visibility instrument at Westchester
County Airport in New York ($800,000).
Instrument approach procedures automation (IAPA).--The
Committee recommends $3,700,000, a reduction of $3,200,000
below the budget estimate. The recommendation holds such costs
to the level approved for fiscal year 2002.
Loran-C.--The committee continues to support the
modernization of the Loran-C navigation system, and recommends
$25,000,000, an increase of $12,000,000 above the budget
estimate. The Committee remains disappointed that FAA proposes
to reduce funding for this initiative each year in order to
fund lower-priority activities.
Nationwide differential GPS.--The Committee recommends no
funding for this project, a savings of $6,000,000 from the
budget estimate. The Committee has long questioned the merits
of this effort, which has been budgeted, at one time or
another, in virtually all of the modal administrations,
including the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal
Railroad Administration, the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation, the United States Coast Guard, and now the
Federal Aviation Administration. The Committee wonders how any
program could be managed effectively with such frenetic
activity, and takes this as a sign that experts in DOT question
the need and value of the program. The value of this effort to
FAA is far from clear, and use of trust fund revenues, paid by
air travelers, for an activity with minimal relevance to air
travel seems highly inappropriate.

IMPROVE RELIABILITY OF THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

The Committee recommends $434,010,000 for programs and
activities designed to increase the reliability of the national
airspace system. This is $9,400,000 below the $3,700,000 above
the budget estimate.
NAS infrastructure management system (NIMS).--The Committee
recommends that funding for this effort be held to the level
provided for fiscal year 2002, a reduction of $13,100,000 below
the budget estimate.

IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY OF MISSION SUPPORT

The Committee recommends $411,919,500 for programs and
activities designed to increase the efficiency of FAA's support
services for capital programs. This is $32,100,000 below the
budget estimate.
Operational data management system.--The Committee
recommends that funding for this effort be held to the level
provided for fiscal year 2002, a reduction of $7,300,000 below
the budget estimate.
Logistics support systems and facilities.--The Committee
recommends that funding for this effort be held to the level
provided for fiscal year 2002, a reduction of $4,300,000 below
the budget estimate.
Facility security risk management.--The Committee
recommends $25,000,000, a reduction of $12,300,000. The
recommendation deletes funding for guard services, as such
funding would be provided with operation funds (-$7,300,000),
and lowers funding for building upgrades in recognition of
significant funding provided in fiscal year 2002 (-$5,000,000).
Transition engineering support.--The Committee recommends
$37,000,000, a reduction of $2,000,000 to fund higher priority
activities.
Technical services support contract (TSSC).--The Committee
recommends $44,700,000, a reduction of $2,000,000 available
from contract savings experienced in the program.
NAS facilities OSHA and environmental standards
compliance.--The bill includes $28,400,000, a reduction of
$4,200,000 below the budget estimate. The recommendation holds
these costs to the fiscal year 2002 level due to budget
constraints.
Flight management system procedures, Newark and Teterboro
Airports, NJ.--The Committee acknowledges the important ongoing
work of Mitrie's Center for Advanced Aviation Systems
Development (CAASD) in developing RNAV/flight management system
procedures for Newark and Teterboro Airports in New Jersey.
These procedures will be the foundation for the New Jersey/New
York airspace redesign and the use of ``free flight''
technologies. The Committee expects FAA to continue using CAASD
to develop RNAV procedures for Newark, Teterboro, John F.
Kennedy International, LaGuardia International, and other
airports where new runways are planned or under construction.
The Committee supports the use of up to $1,000,000 in funding
for this important work in fiscal year 2003.
Research aircraft replacement.--The bill includes
$25,000,000 to acquire a replacement for the 33-year old B-727
research and development aircraft stationed at the FAA
Technical Center in New Jersey. The FAA has been attempting to
replace the current obsolete aircraft for some time, and
maintenance expenses and downtime are rising rapidly. The
Committee believes this is a high priority acquisition project
that can no longer be deferred.

PERSONNEL COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS

The Committee recommends $421,118,000 for personnel
compensation and benefits costs related to FAA's acquisition
personnel. This is $20,000,000 below the budget estimate. This
includes a reduction of $18,551,000 to delete funding for the
accruing costs of federal employee retirement and health care
expenses, as explained in an earlier section of this report.

ACCOUNTWIDE ADJUSTMENTS

National airspace (NAS) handoff.--The Committee recommends
a transfer of $70,000,000 from this appropriation to the
agency's operations budget for NAS handoff costs, as explained
under ``Operations''. These costs are appropriately budgeted as
an operating expense of the agency, not a capital expense.

BILL LANGUAGE

Capital investment plan.--The bill continues to require the
submission of a five year capital investment plan.

Research, Engineering, and Development

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 \1\.................. $245,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003..................... 124,000,000
Recommended in the bill.............................. 138,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.................. -107,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003................. +14,000,000
\1\ Includes $50,000,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations.

This appropriation provides funding for long-term research,
engineering and development programs to improve the air traffic
control system and to raise the level of aviation safety, as
authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act and the
Federal Aviation Act. The appropriation also finances the
research, engineering and development needed to establish or
modify federal air regulations.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $138,000,000, a decrease of
$107,000,000 below the fiscal year 2002 enacted level and
$14,000,000 above the President's budget request. The reduction
below the fiscal year 2002 funding level is largely due to the
transfer of aviation security research from FAA to the
Transportation Security Administration. This activity received
$94,511,000 in funding in fiscal year 2002.
A table showing the fiscal year 2002 enacted level, the
fiscal year 2003 budget estimate, and the Committee
recommendation follows:

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT FISCAL YEAR 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Committee
Program 2002 enacted 2003 estimated recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improve Aviation Safety:
Reduce commercial aviation fatalities:
Fire research and safety................................ $5,242,000 $6,429,000 $5,500,000
Propulsion and Fuel systems............................. 5,998,000 3,998,000 5,998,000
Advanced materials/structural safety.................... 1,338,000 1,374,000 1,374,000
Flight safety/atmospheric hazards....................... 4,494,000 3,101,000 6,000,000
Aging aircraft.......................................... 26,600,000 20,974,000 19,131,000
Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention................ 2,794,000 1,920,000 1,920,000
Flightdeck safety/systems integration................... 8,003,000 8,411,000 8,411,000
Reduce general aviation fatalities:
Propulsion and fuel systems............................. 2,570,000 1,713,000 1,713,000
Advanced materials/structural safety.................... 1,636,000 1,679,000 1,679,000
Flight safety/atmospheric hazards....................... 1,926,000 1,329,000 1,329,000
Aging aircraft.......................................... 6,400,000 5,243,000 10,243,000
Flightdeck safety/systems integration................... 1,903,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Aviation System Safety:
Aviation safety risk analysis............................... 5,784,000 6,926,000 5,784,000
ATC/AF human factors........................................ 8,500,000 10,317,000 8,098,000
Aeromedical research........................................ 6,121,000 6,603,000 6,603,000
Weather research............................................ 13,877,000 19,406,000 19,406,000
Improve Efficiency of the ATC System:
Weather research efficiency................................. 9,791,000 9,099,000 6,000,000
Reduce Environmental Impacts:
Environment and energy...................................... 22,081,000 7,698,000 22,100,000
Improve Mission Efficiency:
System planning and resource management..................... 1,200,000 1,459,000 1,000,000
Technical laboratory facilities............................. 12,250,000 6,455,000 6,455,000
Strategic partnerships...................................... 400,000 610,000 0
System Security Technology:
Explosives and weapons technology........................... 32,624,000 0 0
Airport security technology integration..................... 2,084,000 0 0
Aviation security human factors............................. 5,163,000 0 0
Aircraft hardening.......................................... 4,640,000 0 0
Information system security................................. 2,581,000 0 0
Accountwide Adjustment:
CSRS/FEHBP accruals......................................... 0 -2,744,000 -2,744,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 195,000,000 124,000,000 138,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IMPROVE AVIATION SAFETY

Fire research and safety.--The Committee recommends
$5,500,000, a reduction of $929,000 below the budget estimate.
The reduction would allow a smaller rate of increase over the
fiscal year 2002 enacted funding.
Propulsion and fuel systems.--The Committee recommendation
includes an additional $2,000,000 to continue the work of the
specialty metals processing consortium, an activity which has
been funded for many years.
Flight safety/atmosphere hazards research.--The Committee
recommendation includes $3,000,000 to continue the development
of in-flight simulator training for commercial pilots at the
Roswell Industrial Center in New Mexico.
Aging aircraft.--The Committee recommendations includes
$5,000,000 for new flight safety research equipment at the
National Institute for Aviation Research.

AVIATION SYSTEM SAFETY

Aviation safety risk analysis and air traffic control/
airways facilities human factors.--The Committee recommends
funding at or slightly below the fiscal year 2002 enacted
funding level for these two activities.

IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY OF THE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM

Weather research efficiency.--The Committee recommends
$6,000,000 for this activity, a reduction of $3,099,000 due to
budget constraints.

REDUCE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

The Committee recommends $22,100,000 for this activity, an
increase of $14,402,000 above the budget estimate. Of the funds
provided, $850,000 is for a study of the effectiveness of
current research in aircraft noise reduction technology, to be
conducted by the Louisville Regional Airport Authority in
Kentucky. Also included is the funding requested by the FAA for
updating noise and emission models and $15,000,000 to speed up
the introduction of lower noise aircraft technologies. Within
the funding provided, FAA is directed to conduct, in concert
with an affected airport, a further study of low frequency
aircraft noise. The flaws identified with the previous low
frequency noise impact study should be corrected with this
follow-on study.

IMPROVE MISSION EFFICIENCY

System planning and resource management.--The Committee
recommends $1,000,000. The reduction is due to budget
constraints.
Strategic partnerships.--The Committee recommends no
funding for this project in fiscal year 2003, a reduction of
$610,000 below the budget estimate. This is similar to the
Committee's recommendation for fiscal year 2002. The Committee
continues to believe that this is a low priority activity that
can be deferred.

Grants-in-Aid for Airports

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

Liquidation of
contract Limitation on
authorization obligations
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 $1,800,000,000 ($3,300,000,000)
\1\............................
Budget request, fiscal year 2003 3,100,000,000 (3,400,000,000)
Recommended in the bill......... 3,100,000,000 (3,400,000,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year +1,300,000,000 (+100,000,000)
2002...........................
Budget request, fiscal year .................. ..................
2003...........................
\1\ Excludes $175,000,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations and a
$301,720,000 rescission of contract authority.

The bill includes a liquidating cash appropriation of
$3,100,000,000 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, airport program
administration, and other authorized activities. This is the
same as requested in the President's budget and $1,300,000,000
above the level enacted for fiscal year 2002.

LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

The bill includes a limitation on obligations of
$3,400,000,000 for fiscal year 2003. This is the same as the
President's budget request and $100,000,000 above the fiscal
year 2002 level. This level of funding is required by Public
Law 106-181 and protected by points of order in the House.
A table showing the distribution of these funds compared to
the fiscal year 2002 levels and the President's budget request
follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Activity --------------------------------------------------------
2002 enacted 2003 estimate 2003 recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formula grants: $2,106,200,000 $2,109,100,000 $2,109,100,000
Primary airports................................... (1,028,400,000) (1,028,500,000) (1,028,500,000)
Cargo service airports............................. (96,700,000) (97,100,000) (97,100,000)
Alaska set-aside................................... (21,100,000) (21,300,000) (21,300,000)
States (general aviation airports)................. (644,600,000) (647,200,000) (647,200,000)
Carryover.......................................... (315,400,000) (315,000,000) (315,000,000)
Discretionary grants: 1,116,800,000 1,126,800,000 1,126,800,000
Noise compatibility set-aside...................... (270,600,000) (274,000,000) (274,000,000)
Military airport program set-aside................. (31,800,000) (32,200,000) (32,200,000)
Reliever set-aside................................. (5,300,000) (5,300,000) (5,300,000)
Capacity/safety/security/noise set-aside........... (366,200,000) (370,800,000) (370,800,000)
Remaining discretionary............................ (122,100,000) (123,600,000) (123,600,000)
Returned entitlements.............................. (320,800,000) (320,800,000) (320,800,000)
Administration: 57,050,000 68,257,000 62,820,000
FY 2002 base funding............................... (57,050,000) (57,050,000) (57,050,000)
PC&B increases..................................... N/A (6,284,000) (2,647,000)
Discretionary increases:
Advisory circular contract..................... N/A (1,600,000) (800,000)
Airport financial reporting system............. N/A (500,000) (250,000)
E-government data transfer..................... N/A (1,000,000) .................
Analysis of PFC program........................ N/A (300,000) (300,000)
Environmental streamlining..................... N/A (1,773,000) (1,773,000)
Small community air service............................ 20,000,000 ................. (\1\)
Airport technology research............................ (\2\) 16,429,000 (\3\)
Essential air service.................................. ................. 83,000,000 (\4\)
--------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................ ................. ................. .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Recommendation includes $20,000,000 under Federal Aviation Administration.
\2\ Airport Technology Research was funded under ``Facilities and equipment'' in fiscal year 2002 at a level of
$7,457,000.
\3\ Recommendation includes $7,500,000 under ``Facilities and equipment''.
\4\ Recommendation includes $50,000,000 under ``Office of the secretary''.

DISCRETIONARY GRANTS

Within the overall obligation limitation in this bill,
$1,126,800,000 is available for discretionary grants to
airports. This is $10,000,000 more than provided for fiscal
year 2002. Within this obligation limitation, the Committee
directs that priority be given to grant applications involving
further development of the following airports:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airport name State Project description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbeville Municipal Airport.................... AL Land acquisition; runway overlay/extension.
Andalusia/Opp Municipal Airport................ AL Overlay airport pavement surfaces.
Atmore, AL (Escambia County) Airport........... AL Improvements to safety zones, land acquisitions
for approaches, construction of additional
apron--removal of obstructions, construction of
new taxiway/apron, conduct repairs.
Craig Field Airport............................ AL Overlay runway and construct parallel taxiway.
Dothan Regional Airport........................ AL Runway safety area improvements--runway 14.
Fairhope Municipal Airport..................... AL Runway replacement & conversion of existing
runway to taxiway..
Headline Municipal Airport..................... AL Land acquisition; runway/taxiway extension.
Huntsville International Airport............... AL Phase III of air cargo apron expansion, including
grade,base, pave, and drainage improvements;
complete final phase of intermodal transit
facility, including completion of air cargo
building and associated ramp to provide truck
access.
Jackson Airport................................ AL Eliminate safety violations; construction; land
acquisition.
Lamar County Airport........................... AL Runway resurfacing improvements.
Lawrence County Airport........................ AL Runway rehabilitation--runway 13/31.
Madison County Executive Airport............... AL Security fencing; drainage improvements; land
acquisition; parallel taxiway.
Mobile Airport Authority....................... AL Runway construction/rehabilitation; ramp repair/
rehabilitation.
Montgomery Regional Airport (Dannelly Field)... AL Third and final phase of major renovation to
passenger terminal building.
Oneonta Airport................................ AL Runway extension.
Ozark Airport.................................. AL Land acquisition for runway extension.
Prattville Municipal Airport................... AL Runway; aircraft parking apron overlay; airport
access road.
Richard Arthur-Fayette Field................... AL Improvement & extend runway; install ILS & ATIS;
improve runway markings and fencing.
Roundtree Field Airport........................ AL Apron expansion.
Weedon Field Airport........................... AL Construct parallel taxiway.
American Samoa Airport......................... Amer Airport expansion; fuel tank relocation.
Samoa
Batesville Regional Airport.................... AR Install localizer--DME; runway lighting; relocate
hangars; extend taxiway.
Baxter County Regional Airport................. AR Runway extension; install instrument landing
system.
Benton Airport Relocation...................... AR Relocation of airport to new, donated site.
Blytheville Aeroplex........................... AR ILS upgrade; automated weather observation system
(AWOS); concrete repair and replacement.
Camden Municipal Airport--Harrell Field........ AR Purchase and upgrade facility for construction of
a new aircraft manufacturing/repair facility on
existing airport.
Hot Springs Airport............................ AR Construction of 14 general aviation hangers and
an addition to airport terminal.
Jonesboro Municipal Airport.................... AR Runway extension & strengthening; hangar area
development; parallel taxiway extension; on-
field airport rescue station; overlay runway;
strengthening.
Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport............ AR Expansion of commercial aviation ramp; expansion
of terminal; additional taxiway; additional
freight ramp and taxiway for air cargo; aircraft
parking.
Deer Valley Airport............................ AZ Various improvements.
Williams Gateway Airport....................... AZ Funds for construction of north ramp taxiway.
San Francisco International Airport............ CA Security enhancements.
Fresno Chandler Downtown Airport............... CA Historic restoration of terminal.
Livermore Municipal Airport.................... CA Security enhancements.
Fresno Yosemite International Airport.......... CA Runway rehabilitation; upgraded access control
system; additional staffing and equipment for
airport public safety team; redesign of
ticketing/baggage claim areas.
Lampson Airport................................ CA Construction of low-pressure wastewater
collection system and central pump station to
send airport's wastewater to treatment plant.
Little River Airport-Mendocino County.......... CA Land acquisition.
Meadows Field Airport.......................... CA Completle runway extension and attendant taxiway
for runway 30L; master plan; security
improvements.
Palm Springs International Airport............. CA CNG fueling station; extend high-pressure natural
gas pipeline one mile.
Riverside Municipal Airport.................... CA Purchase 14 acres on west side of airport.
Southern California Logistics Airport.......... CA Runway extension.
Stockton Metropolitan Airport.................. CA Construct cargo apron on north side of Runway 11L/
29R.
Denver International Airport................... CO Construction of runway 16R-34L.
Crystal River-Citrus County Airport............ FL Security upgrades: video monitoring electronic
security access; fencing; ramp lighting.
Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport FL Develop design and procurement documents for
automated people mover.
Gainesville Regional Airport................... FL Rehabilitation of primary runway; storm water
drainage; lengthening of secondary runway.
Inverness-Citrus County Airport................ FL Security upgrades: video monitoring; electronic
security access; fencing; ramp lighting.
Jacksonville Airport........................... FL Taxiway F rehabilitation and extension.
Kissimmee Gateway Airport...................... FL West aircraft apron and access road.
Miami International Airport.................... FL Replacement of 41,000 square yard northwest apron
for aircraft parking; security enhancements.
Orlando International Airport.................. FL Implement necessary wildlife-attractant
mitigation; completion of fourth runway.
Orlando Sanford Airport........................ FL Runway 9R/27L extension; construction of aircraft
taxiway and pavement areas to access hanger
complex.
Sanford Airport................................ FL Airport entrance streetscape improvement;
installation of landscaping and new
identification sign at entrance to passenger
terminals; installation of irrigation system.
St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport FL Completion of runway extension.
Cherokee County Airport........................ GA Land acquisition, site prep, paving for runway
extension and parallel taxiway.
Glynco Jetport Terminal........................ GA Renovations to modernize facility for operations
and security.
Paudling County Airport (proposed)............. GA Planning and development of airport facility.
Richard Russel Airport......................... GA Extend runway; other infrastructure improvements.
Wright Army Airfield........................... GA Conversion of airfield to joint use, level II
airport; repair and upgrade runways, taxiways,
apons, and facilities.
Ankeny Regional Airport........................ IA Grading, drainage, paving, marking, lighting of
south t-hanger apron area and of south t-hanger
taxiway.
Council Bluffs Municipal Airport............... IA Land acquisition for runway development for new
runway 18/36 to meet airport reference code C-II
standards.
Eastern Iowa Airport........................... IA Rehabilitation of east t-hanger taxiway, west t-
hanger taxiways, and general aviation apron.
Fairfield Municipal Airport.................... IA Grading and drainage for new runways and taxiway.
Mason City Municipal Airport................... IA Reconstruction of primary runway--17/35.
Newton Municipal Airport....................... IA Obstruction removal and new taxiway.
Ottumwa Industrial Airport..................... IA Partial parallel taxiway to runway end 31.
Lewis University Airport....................... IL Pave new runway 1-19.
South Suburban Airport (proposed).............. IL Complete environmental impact statement.
Gary/Chicago Airport........................... IN Bituminous overlay for rehabilitation of runway;
expansion of general use apron.
Forbes Field Airport........................... KS Rehabilitation of taxiway C.
Kansas State University Airport................ KS Rehabilitate apon at training facility.
Newton City/County Airport..................... KS Replace aircraft rescue and fire fighting vehicle
(ARFFV).
Wichita Mid-Continent Airport.................. KS Construct new full-length parallel runway and
connecting taxiways.
Barkley Regional Airport....................... KY Property acquisition to lengthen the secondary
runway by 1500 ft.
Big Sandy Airport.............................. KY Runway strengthening.
Bowman Field................................... KY Reconstruction of taxiway and apron; upgrade
airfield visual pilot aids.
Capitol City Airport--Frankfort................ KY Runway and taxiway overlays; extensions; apron
rehabilitation.
Elizabethtown Airport (Addington Field)........ KY Land acquisition for extension of runway 5;
extension of parallel taxiway.
Harlan County Airport.......................... KY Runway safety area.
Hawesville-Hancock County Airport.............. KY Design and construct 4000-foot runway.
Hazard Airport................................. KY Runway extension.
Henderson City-County Airport.................. KY Relocation of taxiway.
Lexington Blue Grass Field..................... KY Expansion of air carrier ramp.
London Airport................................. KY Runway overlay, taxiway.
Louisville International Airport............... KY Acquire properties surrounding airport and
relocate residents.
Madison County Airport......................... KY Runway safety area; runway extension; and
taxiway.
Madisonville Municipal Airport................. KY Widen/extend runway.
Marion/Crittendon County Airport............... KY Engineering for phase I development: excavate for
runway extension/widening.
Marshall Field--Scott County Airport........... KY Runway extension; taxiway and apron overlay.
Middlesboro Airport............................ KY Taxiway and apron.
Monticello Airport............................. KY Parallel taxiway.
Mt. Sterling-Montgomery Airport................ KY Parallel taxiway and safety area.
Pikeville Airport.............................. KY Pavement overlay.
Pine Knot Airport.............................. KY Runway extension.
Rowan County Airport........................... KY Master plan; environmental analysis; grade and
drain for replacement airport.
Somerset Airport............................... KY 400 ft runway extension and overlay.,
Stantion Field--Powell County Airport.......... KY Fencing.
Stuart Powell Field--Boyle County Airport...... KY Runway and taxiway overlays and fencing.
West Liberty Airport........................... KY Fencing.
Williamsburg/Whitley County Airport............ KY Grade and pave for new airport.
Baton Rouge Airport............................ LA Installation of apron drainage system;
reconstruct taxiway M.
Houma-Terrebonne Airport....................... LA Runway upgrades.
Lafayette Regional Airport..................... LA Refurbish existing terminal and adjacent ramp,
air cargo, and maintenance facility; non-revenue
parking areas; commuter walkways; runway 11/29
subsidence reclamation.
Louis Armstrong International Airport.......... LA Airfield safety improvements; terminal apron
rehabilitation; new aircraft rescue/firefighting
vehicle; rehabilitate runways 1/19 and 10/28.
Monroe Regional Airport........................ LA Runway/taxiway lighting repair/upgrade.
Slidell Municipal Airport...................... LA Reconstruction of airport taxiway.
Cherry Capital Airport......................... MI New terminal.
Chippewa County Airport........................ MI New airport terminal.
Detroit Metropolitan/Wayne County Airport...... MI Planned redevelopment.
Oakland Internation Airport.................... MI Acquisition of residences under noise mitigation
program; sound attentuation of homes; screen
wall to mitigate noise on north side of airport.
Pellston Regional Airport...................... MI Renovation of terminal.
Romeo State Airport............................ MI Develop and expand runways; plan and develop
navigational aids; plan and develop runway/
taxiway lighting.
Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport..... MN Deicing pad for runway 12R.
Joplin Airport................................. MO New terminal building.
Kansas City International Airport.............. MO Security upgrades.
Kennett Memorial Airport....................... MO Construct new runway--continuation of project.
Lambert St. Louis International Airport........ MO W-1W expansion project; noise abatement measures.
Maryville Memorial Airport..................... MO Expansion master plan.
Springfield/Branson Airport.................... MO Initiate design for new midfield terminal.
Gulfport-Biloxi Regional Airport............... MS Construction & relocation costs; acquisition of
land for runway extension.
Jackson International Airport.................. MS Terminal renovations and airfield improvements,
including apron replacement and taxiway
rehabilitation; security upgrades.
Jackson Municipal Airport...................... MS Terminal renovations and rehabilitation of air
carrier apron and connecting taxiways.
Helena Regional Airport........................ MT Remodeling of airport terminal; parking lots;
entrance roads; increased security.
Anson County Airport........................... NC Enhancement of facilities, equipment, and
infrastructure.
Burlington-Alamance Regional Airport........... NC Paving and lighting of facility extension; runway/
taxiway extension.
Clinton-Sampson County Airport................. NC Airfield pavement rehabilitation.
Concord Regional Airport....................... NC Land acquisition, design & construction of 1500
foot runway extension.
Currituck County Airport....................... NC Rehabilitate and overlay existing runway.
Harnett County Airport......................... NC Runway extension--phase 2.
Johnston County Airport........................ NC Wetland mitgiation and construction of extended
RSA.
Michael J. Smith Airport....................... NC Extend current runway to 5000 feet.
Monroe Municipal Airport--Union County......... NC Installation of gated system of secure fencing.
Morganton-Lenoir Airport....................... NC Partial parallel taxiway to runway 21; widen/
overlay runway 3-21; partial parallel taxiway to
runway 3.
Rockingham County Airport...................... NC Runway extension and strengthening.
Stanly County Airport.......................... NC Apron improvements; fuel farm relocation;
security fencing; other improvements.
Hickory Regional Airport....................... NC Infrastructure Improvements.
Statesville Municipal Airport.................. NC Acquire land; design/build runway extension;
complete instrument landing system.
Warren Field Airport........................... NC Rehabilitate and overlay existing runway.
Wilmington International Airport............... NC Repair and replace deteriorating underground
drainage pipes; runway clearing.
Bismarck Municipal Airport..................... ND Construct new terminal; expand parking.
Grand Forks International Airport.............. ND Planning, design, and site preparation for new
general aviation runway and parallel taxiway.
Central Nebraska Regional Airport.............. NE Runway reconstruction; reconstruction of 4
taxiways; rehabilitation of airport terminal.
Newark International Airport................... NJ Engineering studies and EIS for installation of
offset localizer directional aid with glide
slope for runway 4L.
Sun Juan Pueblo Airport........................ NM Construction and improvements to existing
facilities.
McCarran International Airport................. NV Two remote transmitter/receiver (RTR) sites.
North Las Vegas Airport........................ NV Installation of runway position hold lights at 27
intersecting taxiways and runways.
Albany International Airport................... NY Extension of primary runway.
Buffalo Niagara International Airport.......... NY Design and construction of extension to runway 14/
32; runway 5/23 extension/rehab; security
improvements.
Greater Rochester International Airport-- NY Terminal improvements; runway 10/28 safety area
multiple projects. improvements; security improvements; east apron
aircraft parking expansion.
Long Island Islip Airport...................... NY Security enhancements.
Hancock International Airport.................. NY Equipment infrastructure improvements.
Niagara Falls International Airport............ NY Rehabilitate apron connecting taxiway D with
condor hangars; access improvements; demolition
of former Bell Helicopter production hanger.
Plattsburgh International Airport.............. NY Construction of passenger terminal; hanger
rehabilitation.
Akron-Canton Regional Airport.................. OH Design and construction of terminal expansion.
Cincinnati Municipal Airport-Lunken Field...... OH Surfacing & drainage; security needs: additional
fencing/access control/surveillance.
Cleveland Hopkins International Airport........ OH Installation of navaids; replacement runway
lighting; noise mitigation program; security
upgrades.
Port Columbus International Airport............ OH Various improvements.
Rickenbacker International Airport............. OH Rehabilitation and expansion of air cargo
aircraft parking; installation of ILS on inside
runway.
Toledo Express Airport......................... OH Construction of new public aircraft parking
apron; security improvements.
Union County Airport........................... OH Runway extension; taxiway relocation.
Davis Field Airport............................ OK Rehabilitate runway 13-31.
Max Westheimer Airport......................... OK Security requirements.
Stillwater Airport............................. OK Runway extension--paving and completion of
project.
Jefferson County Airport....................... OR New flight services building.
Roberts Field/Redmond Airport.................. OR Security improvements.
Bradford Regional.............................. PA Various improvements.
Connellsville Airport.......................... PA Runway extension; benefit-cost analysis; right of
way acquisition; utility/construction drawings;
construction of structure span for local road;
relocation of gas lines.
Dubois-Jefferson County Airport................ PA Various improvements.
Jersey Shore Airport........................... PA Various improvements.
Jimmy Stewart Airport.......................... PA Construct new, longer runway; Phase II of
project.
Philadelphia International Airport............. PA Reconstruct terminal D-E apron; extend runway
safety area for runway 9R; increase airfield
capacity; security enhancements.
Punxsutawney Airport........................... PA Various improvements.
Venango Regional Airport....................... PA Various improvements.
Fairfield County Airport....................... SC Extend runway 500 feet.
Spartanburg Downtown Airport................... SC Extension of runway 5/23 to 5500 ft; construct
required safety area.
Campbell County Airport........................ SD Lengthen and reconstruct existing 2300 foot
runway.
Chan Gurney Airport............................ SD Reconstruction of runway; new high intensity
lighting system.
Highmore Municipal Airport..................... SD Land acquisition; right of way; design.
Pierre Regional Airport........................ SD Reconstruction of runway; new high intensity
lighting system.
Winner Airport--Bob Wiley Field................ SD Reconstruction of runway; taxiway; paving, new
medium intensity lighting system.
Chattanooga Airport............................ TN Construct west airfield access road for aircraft
hangers.
Nashville International........................ TN Security enhancement.
Upper Cumberland Regional Airport.............. TN Extend airport runway 7000 ft; provide 1000 ft
full parallel taxiway extension; acquire 75
acres of land.
Abilene Regional Airport....................... TX Air carrier ramp improvements.
Arlington Municipal Airport.................... TX Acquisition of 48.81 acres of land (right of way)
for airport extension.
Del Rio International Airport.................. TX Land acquisition for runway extension and
improvements.
Denton Municipal Airport....................... TX Realignment of taxiway; runway extension;
terminal expansion; new equipment for new tower.
Draughton-Miller Regional Airport.............. TX Extend runway 15/33 from 6301 to 7000 ft; improve
parallel taxiway; install new elextrical vault;
upgrade lighting.
Fort Worth Alliance Airport.................... TX Extension of 2 runways.
Gainesville Municipal Airport.................. TX Extend & mark runway 71-35; extend parallel
taxiway.
McKinney Municipal Airport..................... TX New taxiway along existing runway.
Robert Gray Army Airfield--Kileen Airport...... TX Expansion of airport; planning; design;
construction.
San Antonio International Airport.............. TX Various improvements.
Valley International Airport................... TX Acquire 115 acres for runway protection zones;
reconstruct/relocate 1.4 miles of road.
St George Airport replacement (replacement).... UT Land acquisition.
Ogden Hinkley Airport.......................... UT Runway reconstruction.
Blue Ridge Airport............................. VA Construction of facility for the Martinsville
Composite Squadron of the Civil Air Patrol.
Breaks Interstate Regional Airport............. VA Land acquisition; design; engineering for new
airport to serve Buchanan and Dickerson
Counties.
Charlottsville-Albermarle Airport.............. VA Rehabilitate general aviation apron pavement;
runway extension; construct air carrier access
road.
Franklin County Airport........................ VA Airport study.
Manassas Airport............................... VA Various improvements.
Twin County Airport............................ VA Rehabilitate and expand runway and apron.
Washington Dulles International Airport........ VA Replace sections of runways, taxiways, taxi
lanes, and apron areas; construct additional
aircraft parking apron at air cargo building 6
with appropriate access taxiways; construct
fillet widening at intersection of taxiway Y and
high speed exit taxiway Y-7.
Henry E. Rohlsen Airport....................... VI Terminal modifications; runway extension.
Austin Straubel International Airport.......... WI Runway intersection reconstruction.
Central Wisconsin Airport...................... WI Reconstruct primary air carrier runway and
parallel taxiway.
General Mitchell International Airport......... WI Extend outer taxiway around concourse C.
LaCrosse Municipal Airport..................... WI Reconstruct parallel taxiway; upgrade electrical
systems; reconstruct east apron.
Jackson County Airport......................... WV Various improvements.
Upshur County Airport.......................... WV Runway Extension; land purchase; sewer and water
infrastructure improvements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ADMINISTRATION

The bill provides that, within the overall obligation
limitation, $62,820,000 is available for administration of the
airports program. Prior to fiscal year 2001, these expenses
were included in the FAA's operating budget. This is a
reduction of $5,437,000 below the budget estimate but an
increase of $5,770,000 (10.1 percent) above the fiscal year
2002 enacted level. Reductions from the budget estimate are
shown in the table below, and are necessary to preserve as many
resources as possible for critical grants to the nation's
airports. Under the Administration's proposal, only 13 percent
of the $100,000,000 increase in the obligation limitation for
fiscal year 2003 would be used for grants at the nation's
airports. The majority of funding would instead have been used
for in-house administrative expenses, research, and the
essential air service program. Funding in the bill is
sufficient to support the requested 535 staffyears, which is an
increase of 34 staffyears (6.7 percent) above the current
fiscal year.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee
estimate recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSRS/FEHBP accruals..................... $3,637,000 ..............
Advisory circular contract.............. 1,600,000 $800,000
E-government data transfer.............. 1,000,000 ..............
Airport financial reporting system...... 500,000 250,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

CSRS/FEHBP accruals.--The reduction of $3,637,000 is
consistent with reductions taken elsewhere in the bill, and is
explained in an earlier section of this report.
Airport technology research.--The Committee recommends no
funding under the limitation on obligations, as such funding is
not authorized from the AIP program. However, funding of
$7,500,000 is recommended under ``Facilities and equipment,
advanced technology development and prototyping''. This is
essentially the same level as provided for fiscal year 2002.
The budget estimate included $16,429,000 for this activity.
Essential air service.--The Committee does not approve the
Administration's request to allow the use of AIP funds to
support the essential air service (EAS) program. Sufficient
appropriations are included elsewhere in this bill to support
the EAS program, as explained in an earlier section of this
report. EAS subsidies are not an authorized use of AIP funding,
and there is no logical connection between these two programs
that would justify the diversion of AIP funding for this
purpose. The merits of funding the EAS program should be
evaluated on their own. While the Committee is well aware of
the budgetary constraints facing the nation, forcing one
program to subsume earmarks for unrelated programs, just to
give the appearance of saving money, is not sound budgetary
policy. Rather, the Administration should be making tough
budget decisions based upon a review of each program on its
merits. While the Committee is aware that costs for EAS service
have risen since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,
the Administration should address those costs directly, rather
than earmark funds from unrelated existing programs.
Security and Safety Training.--Educating and training
employees at airports holds enormous potential in reducing
security risks and enhancing the safety of airport operations.
Security awareness programs, for example, were mandated by
Public Law 101-71 for airport employees, ground crews, gate,
ticket and curbside agents of air carriers and other
individuals employed at airports to enhance airport security.
In addition, the FAA has repeatedly highlighted the promise of
training--particularly interactive training--in reducing runway
incursions, an urgent safety problem the Committee has long
sought to address. In light of these examples, and given the
importance of complementing other measures aimed at addressing
safety and security with efforts to address human factors, the
committee directs the FAA to consider grant requests for
equipment associated with security and safety training among
the highest priority for AIP discretionary funding.

BILL LANGUAGE

Runway incursion prevention systems and devices.--
Consistent with the provisions of Public Law 106-181 and the
DOT and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002, the bill
allows funds under this limitation to be used for airports to
procure and install runway incursion prevention systems and
devices. Because of the urgent safety problem related to runway
incursions, the FAA is directed to consider such grant requests
among the highest priorities for discretionary funding.

Small Community Air Service Development

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 \1\..................... $20,000,000
Budget Request, fiscal year 2003........................
Recommended in the bill................................. 20,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.................
Budget request, fiscal year 2003................ +20,000,000

\1\ Funded under ``Grants-in-aid for airports'' program.

The Small Community Air Service Development Pilot Program
was authorized in section 203 of Public Law 106-181. The
program, authorized at $27,5000,000 for fiscal year 2003, is
designed to stimulate new or expanded air service at
underutilized airports in small and rural communities
throughout the United States. Communities eligible for service
include those which have insufficient air carrier service,
unreasonably high air fares, or which have an airport no larger
than a small hub. The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$20,000,000, from the general fund, to continue this program in
fiscal year 2003. This is the same amount as enacted for fiscal
year 2002. No funding was requested in the budget estimate.
The following communities received grants under this
program in fiscal year 2002. Funds provided in this bill are
available to continue activities in these locations or provide
service to new locations during fiscal year 2003.

King Cover, AK
Sand Point, AK
Akutan, AK
Cold Bay, AK
False Pass, AK
Nelson Lagoon, AK
Mobile, AL
Fort Smith, AR
Lake Havasu City, AZ
Santa Maria, CA
Lamar, CO
Daytona Beach, FL
Augusta, GA/Aiken, SC
Mason City, IA
Hailey, ID
Marion, IL
Fort Wayne, IN
Manhattan, KS
Paducah, KY
Somerset, KY
Lake Charles, LA
Presque Isle, ME
Houghton and Pellston, MI
Brainerd and St Cloud, MN
Cape Girardeau, MO
Meridian, MS
Asheville, NC
Bismarck, ND
Scottsbluff, NE
Taos/Ruidoso, NM
Binghamton, NY
Akron/Canton, OH
Baker City, OR
Reading, PA
Rapid City, SD
Bristol/Kingsport/Johnson City, TN
Abilene, TX
Beaumont/Port Arthur, TX
Moab, UT
Lynchburg, VA
Bellingham, WA
Pasco, WA
Rhinelander, WI
Charleston,W V
Casper and Gillette, WY

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides
financial assistance to the states to construct and improve
roads and highways, and provides technical assistance to other
agencies and organizations involved in road building
activities. Title 23 and other supporting legislation provide
authority for the various activities of the Federal Highway
Administration. Funding is provided by contract authority, with
program levels established by annual limitations on obligations
in Appropriations Acts.
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)
amended the Budget Enforcement Act to provide two additional
discretionary spending categories, one of which is the highway
category. This category is comprised of all federal-aid
highways funding, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration's motor carrier safety funding, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) highway safety grants
funding and NHTSA highway safety research and development
funding.

Summary of Fiscal Year 2003 Program

TEA-21 caps the highway category obligations at
$28,233,000,000 in fiscal year 2003 and Federal-aid obligations
at $23,284,143,000. If highway account receipts exceed levels
specified in TEA-21, automatic adjustments are made to increase
or decrease obligations and outlays for the highway category
accordingly. The increases and decreases associated with
highway account receipts are called revenue aligned budget
authority (RABA). Under TEA-21, if appropriations action forces
highway obligations to exceed this obligation level specified
in TEA-21 as adjusted by RABA, the resulting difference in
outlays is charged to the non-defense discretionary spending
category.

Revenue Aligned Budget Authority

In fiscal year 2003, the provisions of TEA-21 would require
a reduction of $4,369,000,000 in federal-aid highway funding
due to RABA. The guaranteed level for federal-aid highways
would be reduced to $23,284,143,000, representing a reduction
of almost 16 percent from the base funding level in TEA-21, and
a total reduction of 27 percent from the $31,799,104,000
provided in FY 2002.
Section 1402 of the fiscal year 2002 supplemental
appropriations bill (Public Law 107-206) restores the fiscal
year 2003 highway funding reduction that would have been caused
by the RABA adjustment and raises the highway guarantee by
$4,369,000,000. Therefore, the Committee's recommendation
exceeds the guaranteed level contemplated in TEA-21 by
$4,369,000,000. However, because the provision increases the
highway category specifically, the additional highway funding
does not come at the expense of other discretionary programs.
The following table summarizes the program levels within the
Federal Highway Administration for fiscal year 2002 enacted,
the fiscal year 2003 budget request and the Committee's
recommendation:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fisal year 2002 Fiscal year 2003 Recommended in the
Program enacted request bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-aid highways................................ \1\ $27,280,000,00 $27,628,536,000 $27,653,143,000
0
Revenue aligned budget authority (RABA)............. 4,519,104,000 -4,369,000,000 0
Adjustment.......................................... .................. -54,749,000 ..................
-----------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal...................................... 31,799,104,000 23,204,787,000 27,653,143,000
Exempt obligations.................................. \2\ 1,274,176,000 892,767,000 892,767,000
-----------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal...................................... 33,073,280,000 24,097,554,000 28,545,910,000
Appalachian Development Highway System.............. 200,000,000 .................. 100,000,000
Miscellaneous appropriations........................ \3\ \4\ 248,300,00 .................. ..................
0
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total......................................... 33,521,580,000 24,097,544,000 28,645,910,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $100,000,000 above the obligation limitation above that guaranteed by TEA-21.
\2\ Reflects $75,000,000 emergency relief (ER) supplemental funding provided by P.L. 107-117.
\3\ Provided by section 330 of P.L. 107-87.
\4\ Reflects $100,000,000 supplemental funding provided by P.L. 107-117.

Limitation on Administrative Expenses

Limitation, fiscal year 2003 \1\...................... ($311,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2003...................... (317,732,000)
Recommended in the bill............................... (370,042,000)
Bill compared with:
Limitation, fiscal year 2002...................... (+59,042,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2003.................. (+52,310,000)
\1\ Does not reflect a reduction of $841,000 pursuant to section 349 of
Public Law 107-87 as amended by section 1106 of P.L. 107-117.

This limitation controls spending for the salaries and
expenses of the Federal Highway Administration required to
conduct and administer the federal-aid highways programs and
most other federal highway programs. In the past, this
limitation included a number of contract programs, such as
highway research, development and technology; however, the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) created
a separate limitation for transportation research. Accordingly,
in fiscal year 2003, costs related to highway research,
development and technology are included under a separate
limitation.
The Committee recommends a limitation of $370,042,000. This
level is sufficient to fund 2,422 FTEs. The recommended level
assumes the following adjustments to the budget request:

Reduce funding for employee development............... -$1,606,000
Increase funding for environmental streamlining....... +7,000,000
Southern border truck inspection facilities........... +47,000,000
Deny FECA administrative costs........................ -$84,300

Employee development.--The Committee has reduced the
request for workforce development activities by $1,606,000. The
Committee has provided $2,500,000, the same level as provided
in fiscal year 2001.
Environmental streamlining.--The budget request included a
total of $6,000,000 for environmental streamlining initiatives,
funded from the administrative balances set-aside. The
Committee recommendation includes a total of $7,000,000 in
fiscal year 2003 for environmental streamlining initiatives
within the limitation on administrative expenses. The Committee
directs FHWA to provide the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations a report, not later than March 1, 2003,
summarizing FHWA's streamlining efforts. The report should
include specific examples of FHWA activities that have helped
streamline the environmental process.
The Committee is extremely disconcerted with the
unprecedented actions the Department took with regard to the
report on FHWA's streamlining efforts due to the Committee
January 2, 2002. The report was delivered to the Committee on
the evening before FHWA was to testify before the
Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation. Without prior
notice or approval, the Department violated the standard
practice in place for many years, and not only attached the
report to testimony delivered to the Committee for public
dissemination, but also widely distributed the report to other
Committees and to the press. Although directed by Congress
specifically for the use of this Committee, members of the
Appropriations Committee had no opportunity to read the report
before mass distribution to the public. The Committee strongly
recommends the Department confer with the Committee and adopt
procedures for report distribution similar to the standards in
place and followed before February 28, 2002. In addition, the
Committee directs the Department to refrain from attaching
miscellaneous documents, including reports, to Congressional
testimony without prior consultation with the Committee.
Truck safety inspection facilities.--The Committee
recommendation provides $47,000,000 from the limitation on
administrative expenses for the construction of permanent truck
safety inspection facilities along the U.S./Mexico border. The
budget request included this funding proposal from within the
national corridor planning and development program. In its
fiscal year 2002 budget request, the Administration's stated
goal was to receive a total of $160,000,000 over three years to
contribute towards funding of state border inspection
facilities at 23 sites. In 2002, the Committee provided
$66,000,000 for this effort.
FECA administrative costs.--The Committee has reduced
funding by $84,300 from the budget request for workers
compensation administrative costs as explained in an earlier
section of this report.

Limitation on Transportation Research

Limitation, fiscal year 2002 \1\.................... ..................
Budget request, fiscal year 2003 \1\................ ..................
Recommended in the bill............................. ($462,500,000)
Bill compared with:
Limitation, fiscal year 2002.................... (+462,500,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2003................ (+462,500,000)
\1\ Resources available in fiscal year 2002 and requested in fiscal year
2003 are assumed within the federal-aid obligation limitation in the
budget request for fiscal year 2003.

This limitation controls spending for the transportation
research and technology contract programs of the Federal
Highway Administration. It includes a number of contract
programs including intelligent transportation systems, surface
transportation research, technology deployment, training and
education, and university transportation research. In the past,
funding under this limitation was provided in part from the
limitation on general operating expenses and from contract
authority provided in permanent law. The recommendation
includes an obligation limitation for transportation research
of $462,500,000. This limitation is consistent with the
provisions of TEA-21 and mirrors the House-passed fiscal year
2002 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
appropriations bill.
The bill provides $462,500,000 in fiscal year 2003 for the
following transportation research programs:

Surface transportation research......................... $103,000,000
Technology deployment program........................... 50,000,000
Training and education.................................. 20,000,000
Bureau of transportation statistics..................... 31,000,000
ITS standards, research, operational tests and
development......................................... 110,000,000
ITS deployment.......................................... 122,000,000
University transportation research...................... 26,500,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. $462,500,000

Highway Research

In response to the Committee's concern the U.S. General
Accounting Office completed a review of FHWA's research program
in May 2002. The report included recommendations to help ensure
that FHWA's research agenda and approach to evaluation result
in identification of research with the highest value to the
surface transportation community. The Committee directs FHWA
to: (1) develop a systematic approach for obtaining input from
external stakeholders in determining the research and
technology program's agendas; (2) develop a systematic process
that incorporates peer review or other best practices in use at
federal agencies that conduct research; (3) and develop
specific plans for implementing these recommendations,
including time frames and cost estimates.

Surface Transportation Research

Within the funds provided for highway research and
development under the surface transportation research program,
the Committee recommends the following:

Environment, planning, and real estate.................. $17,000,000
Research and technology program support................. 8,000,000
International research.................................. 500,000
Structures.............................................. 13,500,000
Safety.................................................. 12,000,000
Operations.............................................. 12,500,000
Asset management........................................ 3,000,000
Pavements research...................................... 15,500,000
Policy research......................................... 9,000,000
Long-term pavement project.............................. 10,000,000
Advanced research....................................... 1,000,000
R&T strategic planning/performance measures............. 1,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. $103,000,000

Environment, planning, and real estate research.--The
environment research and technology program develops improved
tools for assessing highway impacts on the environment;
techniques for the avoidance, detection, and mitigation of
those impacts and for the enhancement of the environment; and
expertise on environmental concerns within FHWA and state and
local transportation agencies. The planning and real estate
research and technology program advances cost effective methods
to evaluate transportation strategies and investments; develops
and disseminates improved planning methods; develops more
effective planning and data collection techniques for
intermodal passenger and freight planning and programming;
improves financial planning tools for use in developing
transportation plans and programs; evaluates the
characteristics of the National Highway System; and develops
improved analytical tools to support metropolitan and statewide
planning and for information and data sharing with state and
local governments. The Committee has provided $17,000,000.
Research and technology program support.--The Committee has
provided $8,000,000. Funds provided under this category support
a variety of programs, including the Transportation Research
Board core program; the small business innovative research
program; and marketing, publication and communication
activities.
International research.--The Committee has provided
$500,000, the level authorized under TEA-21, for international
research activities. FHWA is directed to consult the Committee
before any international agreements are consummated that are
likely to require financial support.
Structures.--The structures research and technology program
develops technologies, advanced materials and methods to
efficiently maintain and renew the aging transportation
infrastructure, improve existing infrastructure performance,
and enable efficient infrastructure response and quick recovery
after major disasters. The committee has provided $13,500,000
for structures research. Funds provided will help FHWA make
progress towards its performance goal to reduce deficiencies on
NHS bridges from 21.5 percent in 2000 to 21 percent in 2003, as
well as reduce deficiencies on all bridges. This funding will
ensure continued progress on high performance materials and
engineering applications to efficiently design, repair,
rehabilitate, and retrofit bridges. Within the funds provided,
FHWA shall provide $1,000,000 for the deployment of lithium
technologies to prevent and mitigate alkali silica reactivity.
The Committee notes that funding has been provided to the FHWA
for several years, yet little progress has been made in the
deployment of these promising technologies. Within the funds
provided, the FHWA shall provide $1,000,000 for the New York
City Bridges Corrosion Monitoring Project.
Safety.--The safety research and technology program
develops engineering practices, analysis tools, equipment,
roadside hardware, and safety promotion and public information
that will significantly contribute to the reduction of highway
fatalities and injuries. The Committee has provided $12,000,000
for safety research programs. Within the funds provided, the
Committee directs the FHWA to provide $600,000 to the
University of Florida's Seniors Institute for Transportation
and Communications, and $1,000,000 to the National
Transportation Research Center, University of Tennessee for
heavy vehicle research.
Operations and asset management.--The Committee has
provided $15,500,000 for operations research and asset
management. The highway operations research program is designed
to develop, deliver, and deploy advanced technologies and
administrative methods to provide pavement and bridge
durability, and to reduce construction and maintenance-related
user delays. Funds provided under this category support a
variety of research projects seeking to improve highway
operations, including work to improve the manual on uniform
traffic control devices, work zone operations, technologies
that facilitate operational responses to changes in weather
conditions, and freight management operations. Within the funds
provided, the Committee directs the FHWA to provide $550,000 to
the Southern Rural Transportation Center and $400,000 to the
Orangeburg County Rural Transit Demonstration project at South
Carolina State University.
The Committee has not included any funds for statistical
analysis of the National Quality Initiative under any FHWA
research program. Such analysis shall be performed by the
Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
Pavements research.--The pavement research and technology
program identifies engineering practices, analytic tools,
equipment, roadside hardware, and safety promotion and public
information that will significantly contribute to the reduction
of highway fatalities and injuries. Activities include work on
asphalt, Portland cement concrete pavements, and recycled
materials. The Committee has provided $15,500,000 for pavement
research. Pavement research amounts, along with the $10,000,000
provided for long-term pavement performance, will allow FHWA to
undertake research projects to improve the nation's
infrastructure. Within the funds provided, the Committee
directs the FHWA to provide $1,000,000 to the Center for
Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Technology in Idaho, $500,000
to the Institute for Aggregates Research at Michigan
Technological University, and $1,000,000 to the test track and
hot mixed asphalt research at Auburn University.
Policy research.--The policy research and technology
program supports FHWA policy analysis and development,
strategic planning, and technology development through research
in data collection, management and dissemination; highway
financing, investment analysis, and performance measurement;
and enhancement of highway program contributions to economic
productivity, efficiency, and other national goals. The
Committee has provided $9,000,000 for policy research. Within
the funds provided, the Committee directs the FHWA to provide
$2,000,000 to the University of Kentucky's Academy for
Community Transportation Innovation for transportation research
on integrating public involvement technology and environmental
issues in the transportation planning process.

ITS Standards, Research, Operational Tests and Development

The Committee recommends the $110,000,000 provided in TEA-
21 for ITS research be allocated in the following manner:

Research and development................................ $48,680,000
Operational tests....................................... 12,930,000
Evaluation.............................................. 7,750,000
Architecture and standards.............................. 15,290,000
Integration............................................. 11,350,000
Program support......................................... 9,000,000

Commercial vehicle operations (CVO) research.--The
Committee's allowance includes $6,800,000 for commercial
vehicle operations research. The funds will be used to continue
to develop and test advanced technology for roadside
identification. This technology is needed to identify
commercial carriers and vehicles without transponders in
advance of their approach to an inspection site. This
technology will ensure that maximum use of the SAFER, ASPEN,
Mailbox data system, PIQ, PRISM target file, and the ISS2
systems is facilitated. Advancement of technology to promote
the transfer of information from NLETS to MCSAP officers,
including improved communications between the NLETS bridge and
the PRISM target file and other information systems, should
also be supported with the additional funds provided.

ITS Deployment

It is the intent of the Committee that the following
projects contribute to the integration and interoperability of
intelligent transportation systems in metropolitan and rural
areas as provided under section 5208 of TEA-21 and promote
deployment of the commercial vehicle intelligent transportation
system infrastructure as provided under section 5209 of TEA-21.
These projects shall conform to the requirements set forth in
these sections, including the project selection criteria
contained in section 5208(b) and the priority areas outlined in
section 5209(c), respectively. Projects selected for funding
shall use all applicable, published ITS standards. This
requirement may be waived if the Secretary determines that the
use of a published ITS standard would be counterproductive to
achievement of the program objectives. Funding for ITS
deployment activities is as follows:

Project Amount
Advanced Traffic Analysis Center, North Dakota State
University.......................................... $1,000,000
Alameda-Contra Costa transit district (SatCom),
California.......................................... 1,000,000
American Tobacco Trail Project, Wake County, North
Carolina............................................ 500,000
ATMS/ATIS Hutchinson River Parkway, New York............ 2,000,000
Automated Vehicle Location (AVL) and Mobile Data
Terminals--Palm Tran--Palm Beach Florida............ 1,000,000
Bay County Area Wide Traffic Signal System, Florida..... 1,000,000
CalTrain train tracking information system (SamTrans),
San Mateo County, California........................ 500,000
Capital District Transportation Authority, customer
information ITS project, New York................... 800,000
Chapel Hill Transit, North Carolina, real time passenger
information system and vehicle location system...... 1,000,000
Chattanooga, Tennessee CARTA ITS........................ 4,400,000
Cicero Avenue travel information system, Illinois....... 500,000
City of Boston intelligent transportation system,
Massachusetts....................................... 1,000,000
City of Alexandria, Virginia, intelligent transportation
system (Alexandria ITS--King/Braddock/Quaker)....... 750,000
City of Austin, Texas ITS Deployment Program, Texas..... 500,000
City of Inglewood, California intelligent transportation
system deployment project........................... 500,000
Concord Parkway Traffic Signals System Integration--
Concord, North Carolina............................. 1,400,000
Continental 1........................................... 1,500,000
DelDOT Integrated Transportation Management System--
DelTrac, Statewide Transit Passenger Info System.... 1,000,000
Dynamic Message Sign (DMS) camera deployment and
integration program, Monroe County, New York........ 1,000,000
Elkhorn Boulevard Project, Sacramento, California....... 350,000
Emergency Vehicle Access Program, Antrim, Pennsylvania.. 60,000
Emergency Vehicle Optical Pre-Emption, Town of Islip,
New York............................................ 750,000
Fog Detection Improvement and Traffic Monitoring, Rural
Mountain Region, North Carolina..................... 200,000
Gettysburg Borough Signal Coordination and Upgrade--
Signalization; Adams County, Pennsylvania........... 1,950,000
HART Bus Tracking and Communication, Florida............ 4,000,000
Houma, Louisiana........................................ 1,000,000
Hunt County, Texas...................................... 1,000,000
I-90 Truck Wind Warning System--Columbia River,
Washington.......................................... 100,000
Idaho Commercial Vehicle Systems and Networks (CVISN)--
Level 1 Completion.................................. 1,000,000
Image-based toll collection system project, California.. 1,000,000
Intelligent transportation system statewide, Illinois... 1,000,000
Intelligent transportation, ADART phase IV
implementation, Corpus Christi, Texas............... 500,000
Intermodal ITS center, Orleans Parish, Louisiana........ 500,000
Interstate 95/Interstate 40 travel information
improvements, Johnston County, North Carolina....... 500,000
Law Enforcement Communications for Security and
Biometrics, Iowa.................................... 3,500,000
Baton Rouge, Louisiana.................................. 1,000,000
Johnson County Transit, Kansas, automatic vehicle
locator............................................. 500,000
Kansas City Scout Advanced Traffic Management System
(along I-635), Kansas............................... 1,500,000
Kansas City, Kansas Smart Port (International trade
processing center).................................. 1,500,000
Libertyville Traffic Management Center, Illinois........ 1,000,000
Macomb County ITS Integration, Michigan................. 500,000
Maricopa County, AZTech integrated emergency and
transportation communication network, Arizona....... 1,500,000
Metrolina Traffic Management Center Communication, North
Carolina............................................ 1,000,000
MetroLink Los Angeles Union Station (LAUS) passenger
information delivery system project................. 500,000
Minnesota Guidestar..................................... 12,000,000
Montachusett Area Regional Transit (MART) advanced
vehicle location system, Massachusetts.............. 200,000
Monterey-Salinas Transit, intelligent transportation
system, California.................................. 750,000
Montgomery County, Maryland Advanced Transportation
Management System (ATMS)............................ 1,550,000
Nebraska ITS............................................ 2,000,000
New Bedford, Massachusetts intelligent transportation
information center.................................. 1,000,000
New York Metropolitan Area enhanced operations, New York 1,000,000
North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles, Hillsborough
weigh station Orange County, North Carolina......... 1,000,000
Oakland County Smart Corridor and Emergency Routing
System, Michigan.................................... 4,800,000
Oklahoma Department of Transportation, intelligent
transportation systems project...................... 1,000,000
Ports of Long Beach/Los Angeles Advanced Transportation
Management & Information Systems.................... 1,000,000
Positive Protection Railroad/grade Crossing System
Project, Alabama.................................... 2,000,000
Project Hoosier SAFE-T, Indiana......................... 1,000,000
Richmond Highway intelligent transportation system
project, Virginia................................... 400,000
Round Rock, Texas, Williamson County, Communications
Integration......................................... 500,000
Rural Highway Information System, Kentucky.............. 6,000,000
Sacramento Area Council of Governments, Sacramento
region intelligent transportation system projects,
California.......................................... 1,000,000
Salem, New Hampshire ITS................................ 900,000
San Diego Joint Transportation Operations Center,
California.......................................... 2,000,000
San Francisco, Muni, automatic vehicle location/GPS,
California.......................................... 1,000,000
Santa Teresa Border Tech Center, New Mexico State
University.......................................... 1,000,000
SD, ND, MN, IN Maintenance Decision Support System...... 850,000
Shreveport ITS, Louisiana............................... 1,500,000
Sierra Madre Villa Intermodal Transportation Center,
California.......................................... 1,000,000
South Carolina DOT inroads intelligent transportation
system, statewide................................... 3,000,000
South Com Regional Dispatch Trauma Center, Matteson,
Olympia Fields, and Richton Park, Illinois.......... 200,000
Springfield Regional ITS, Missouri...................... 1,500,000
SR 316/SR 81 Intersection Improvements--Barrow and
Oconee counties, Georgia............................ 1,600,000
State of Wisconsin, deployment of commercial vehicle
information system and networks, level one
capability.......................................... 500,000
State of Wisconsin, upgrade of state patrol's data
communications network.............................. 2,000,000
Statewide Transportation Operations Center, Kentucky.... 1,000,000
Surveillance Camera and Transportation Management
Center, Des Moines, Iowa............................ 1,000,000
Texas Transportation Institute's Monitoring and
Emergency Notification for the Texas Medical Center
campus, Texas....................................... 350,000
The Rapid, Grand Rapids, Michigan Public Transportation. 1,000,000
Traffic Corridor Communications System, Lake County,
Illinois............................................ 2,000,000
TRANSCOM regional architecture and TRANSMIT and IRVN
projects, New Jersey................................ 500,000
Tri-Cities Advanced Traffic Management System,
Washington.......................................... 500,000
UALR Intelligent transportation system, Little Rock,
Arkansas............................................ 500,000
UK 1-75 Research, Kentucky.............................. 1,640,000
University of Alabama at Birmingham Center for Injury
Sciences, Alabama................................... 3,250,000
US-395 Columbia River Bridge Traffic Operations and
Traveler Information System, Washington............. 250,000
Utah's ITS (CommuterLink)............................... 1,000,000
Vallejo Baylink Ferry Intermodal Center, California..... 500,000
Wayne County Road Information Management System (RIMS),
Wayne County, Michigan.............................. 2,500,000
Witchita ITS (ITS Traffic/Emergency Operations Center
and transit ITS).................................... 4,000,000

Joint Program Office.--In the early 1990s, the
Appropriations Committees expressed strong support for the
formulation of a Joint Program Office (JPO) within the DOT to
oversee the federal role in the national Intelligent
Transportation System (ITS) effort. This office, which is
located within the Federal Highway Administration, now provides
overall program direction and budget coordination among the
multiple DOT offices conducting ITS activities. The Committee
believes the JPO has sucessfully managed the ITS program. For
example, the JPO's close association with FHWA's research,
headquarters staff, and regional offices has ensured a unified
approach to providing training, implementation and testing of
standards, and adherence to a national systems architecture.
The Committee maintains that the JPO's positive working
relationship with the FMCSA and FTA has facilitated progress in
advancement of technologies and the deployment of systems.
The appropriation for ITS provided herein is predicated on
the continuation of the JPO conducting the functions identified
previously. Maximum efficiencies are most likely to be obtained
by retaining the current administrative structure of the JPO
within the FHWA with a reporting function to the Deputy
Secretary. If there is any change in the administrative
structure or responsibilities of the JPO, the Secretary is
directed to inform the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations and to justify in detail such changes.

Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Under the FHWA appropriation, the accompanying bill
provides $31,000,000 for the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics (BTS), the amount authorized in TEA-21. The
Committee does not provide additional amounts requested from
the airport and airway trust fund. The Committee notes that BTS
has undergone significant increases in staffing since 1993, the
year BTS was established. In fiscal year 1993, on-board
positions totaled 5, in 2001 total staff stood at 101, and BTS
estimates on-board staff to total 146 by the end of 2002. In
fiscal year 2003, BTS requests a level of 157 full time
position (FTP). The Committee is concerned about these staff
increases, particularly when the staffing level has exceeded
the Administration's request to Congress. Therefore, the
Committee limits BTS full time positions to 146 or, if lower,
the number of on-board positions upon enactment of this bill.

Federal-Aid Highways

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Liquidation of
contract Limitation on
authorization obligations
Limitation, fiscal year 2002.. $30,000,000,000 ($31,799,104,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 29,000,000,000 (32,204,787,000)
2003\1\......................
Recommended in the bill....... 29,000,000,000 (27,653,143,000)
Bill compared with:...........
Limitation, fiscal year -1,000,000,000 (-4,145,961,000)
2002.....................
Budget request, fiscal ................... (+4,448,356,000)
year 2003................
\1\ The budget request includes an adjustment of $4,369,000,000
associated with revenue aligned budget authority; excludes transfer of
$182,464,000 to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration; and
reduction of $54,749,000 associated with that transfer.

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

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 958,000 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 84 percent of
total U.S. highway traffic.
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)
reauthorized highway, highway safety, transit, and other
surface transportation programs through fiscal year 2003. TEA-
21 builds on programs and other initiatives established in the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of
1991, the previous major authorizing legislation for surface
transportation programs.
The Committee recommends liquidating cash appropriation of
$30,000,000,000. This is equal to the fiscal year 2002 enacted
level and is the required amount to pay the outstanding
obligations of the various highway programs at levels provided
in past Appropriation Acts.

LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

The accompanying bill includes language limiting fiscal
year 2003 federal-aid highways obligations to $27,653,143,000,
a reduction of $4,145,961,000 from the fiscal year 2002 enacted
level and $4,448,356,000 over the budget request. The
recommended level is $4,369,000,000 above the level assumed in
TEA-21.
The obligation limitation for the federal-aid highways
program does not include a downward adjustment of
$4,369,000,000 in obligations resulting from revenue aligned
budget authority. TEA-21 provides for an automatic adjustment
in the federal-aid highways program budget authority and
obligation authority in any budget year in which projected
income to the highway account of the highway trust fund are
above or below estimates of income to the trust fund that were
made at the time TEA-21 was enacted. Under law, a determination
of the size of this increase or decrease in so-called
``firewall'' spending levels is made in the President's budget
submission. TEA-21 calls for any such decreases in budget
authority to be distributed proportionately among certain
federal-aid highways apportioned and allocated programs, and
for the overall federal-aid obligation limitation to be
decreased by an equal amount. In total, the estimate of reduced
income, and therefore obligations for fiscal year 2003, is
$4,369,000,000 for the federal-aid highway program. However,
the Appropriations Committee included language in section 1402
of the fiscal year 2002 supplemental appropriations bill
(Public Law 107-206) that restores the fiscal year 2003 highway
funding reduction due to TEA-21 by raising the highway
guarantee by $4,369,000,000. Therefore, the entire
$27,653,143,000 is guaranteed under the highway category.
Because the provision increases the highway category, the
increase in highway funding does not come at the expense of
other discretionary programs.
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 spending. The following table indicates estimated
obligations by program within the $27,653,143,000 provided by
this Act and additional resources made available by permanent
law:

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS ESTIMATED OBLIGATIONS

The following table reflects the estimated distribution of
the federal-aid limitation by state:

ESTIMATED FY 2003 OBLIGATIONS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated FY FY 2003 Appalachian
State 2003 formula minimum development Total Change from FY
limitation guarantee highways \1\ 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama......................... $384,255 $34,022 $43,794 $462,071 -$64,034
Alaska.......................... 199,842 70,039 0 269,881 -33,080
Arizona......................... 365,260 52,053 0 417,313 -58,505
Arkansas........................ 271,508 27,056 0 298,564 -37,756
California...................... 1,959,265 139,960 0 2,099,225 -267,525
Colorado........................ 283,927 19,380 0 303,307 -38,159
Connecticut..................... 296,518 47,902 0 344,420 -42,502
Delaware........................ 97,800 8,337 0 106,137 -12,262
District of Columbia............ 91,935 315 0 92,250 -12,690
Florida......................... 929,943 158,387 0 1,088,329 -152,610
Georgia......................... 703,280 103,998 17,502 824,780 -115,146
Hawaii.......................... 107,038 10,226 0 117,264 -16,266
Idaho........................... 148,249 19,639 0 167,887 -23,248
Illinois........................ 722,137 41,703 0 763,840 -105,432
Indiana......................... 472,220 62,792 0 535,012 -67,684
Iowa............................ 266,073 10,090 0 276,163 -34,610
Kansas.......................... 260,726 7,997 0 268,723 -37,024
Kentucky........................ 335,024 26,786 40,174 401,984 -55,689
Louisiana....................... 337,422 23,726 0 361,148 -42,022
Maine........................... 113,758 8,313 0 122,071 -16,943
Maryland........................ 347,116 25,341 6,848 379,305 -44,525
Massachusetts................... 395,516 26,342 0 421,857 -54,407
Michigan........................ 664,026 75,221 0 739,248 -102,802
Minnesota....................... 316,312 19,781 0 336,093 -41,724
Mississippi..................... 271,328 21,580 4,911 297,819 -37,689
Missouri........................ 502,919 32,083 0 535,002 -67,848
Montana......................... 200,922 34,512 0 235,434 -27,334
Nebraska........................ 179,788 6,201 0 185,989 -25,794
Nevada.......................... 150,183 18,532 0 168,716 -23,542
New Hampshire................... 104,974 9,965 0 114,938 -13,622
New Jersey...................... 559,537 33,418 0 592,956 -81,851
New Mexico...................... 204,828 21,628 0 226,456 -28,436
New York........................ 1,061,869 86,048 9,439 1,157,356 -150,818
North Carolina.................. 551,483 70,602 25,784 647,869 -90,258
North Dakota.................... 145,450 10,771 0 156,222 -19,598
Ohio............................ 721,868 58,722 19,749 800,339 -101,629
Oklahoma........................ 343,372 14,902 0 358,274 -49,553
Oregon.......................... 259,448 14,247 0 273,695 -34,338
Pennsylvania.................... 938,654 56,851 107,082 1,102,587 -151,588
Rhode Island.................... 128,924 11,892 0 140,817 -18,349
South Carolina.................. 345,092 45,378 2,145 392,616 -50,241
South Dakota.................... 150,810 13,143 0 163,953 -20,588
Tennessee....................... 440,046 37,433 49,098 526,577 -60,998
Texas........................... 1,594,413 214,113 0 1,808,525 -252,766
Utah............................ 170,275 7,816 0 178,091 -24,550
Vermont......................... 101,110 6,876 0 107,986 -12,532
Virginia........................ 533,615 61,643 10,320 605,578 -70,062
Washington...................... 385,806 18,210 0 404,016 -55,647
West Virginia................... 174,804 11,106 60,894 246,805 -29,861
Wisconsin....................... 400,802 53,363 0 454,164 -63,352
Wyoming......................... 156,135 9,559 0 165,692 -18,335
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................. 20,847,605 2,000,000 397,740 23,245,345 -3,057,826
Special Limitation:
High Priority Projects...... .............. .............. .............. 1,778,372 170,725
Woodrow Wilson Bridge....... .............. .............. .............. 202,275 -30,667
Allocation Reserve.......... .............. .............. .............. 2,427,152 -1,228,192
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Limitation.......... .............. .............. .............. 27,653,143 -4,145,961
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Totals for Appalachian Development Highways do not include $100,000,000 provided in this bill outside of TEA-
21

Under TEA-21, Federal-aid highways funds are made available
through the following major programs:

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS ESTIMATED OBLIGATIONS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003
Programs actual estimate estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject to limitation:
Surface Transportation $7,125,997 $6,960,222 $6,233,877
Program..................
National Highway System... 5,444,542 5,954,976 5,340,660
Interstate Maintenance.... 4,107,833 5,020,689 4,437,608
Bridge Program............ 3,035,729 4,300,544 3,805,079
Congestion Mitigation and 883,818 1,692,402 1,515,103
Air Quality Improvement..
Minimum Guarantee......... 2,004,786 1,572,609 1,829,044
Safety Incentive Grants 93,286 110,220 100,688
for Use of Seat Belts....
ITS Standards, Research 86,018 120,488 98,890
and Development..........
ITS Deployment............ 86,366 167,328 109,678
Transportation Research... 201,025 261,872 210,351
Federal Lands Highways.... 635,672 855,323 624,010
National Corridor Planning 122,096 509,419 125,860
and Coordinated Border
Infrastu.................
Administration............ 294,470 310,159 370,042
Other Programs............ 1,753,597 793,438 365,656
High Priority Projects 1,159,272 1,413,556 1,478,376
Program..................
Woodrow Wilson Bridge 342,084 305,110 202,275
(Special)................
Transportation 113,748 109,161 116,870
Infrastructure Finance
and Innovation...........
Appalachian Development 320,641 720,786 397,740
Highway System \1\.......
-----------------------------------------
Total Subject to 27,810,980 31,178,302 27,361,807
Obligation Limitation
\2\....................
=========================================
Emergency Relief Program...... 87,919 125,287 100,000
Minimum Allocation/Guarantee.. 745,440 595,493 621,597
Demonstration Projects.... 159,855 244,529 171,170
Reestimates of Direct Loan 0 19,000 0
Subsidy/Interest on Subsidy..
-----------------------------------------
Total Exempt Programs... 993,214 984,309 892,767
=========================================
Emergency Relief Supplemental. 566,298 400,867 0
=========================================
Grand Total, Federal-Aid 29,370,492 32,563,478 28,254,574
Highways (Direct)......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Totals for Appalachian Development Highways do not include
$100,000,000 provided in this bill outside of TEA-21.
\2\ Reflects estimated obligations which may be less than the enacted
obligation limitation.

National highway system.--The ISTEA of 1991 authorized--and
the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995
subsequently established--the National Highway System (NHS).
This 163,000-mile road system serving major population centers,
international border crossings, intermodal transportation
facilities and major travel destinations, 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, other urban and rural principal arterials,
the defense strategic highway network, and major strategic
highway connectors, and is estimated to carry up to 76 percent
of commercial truck traffic and 44 percent of all vehicular
traffic. A state may choose to transfer up to 50 percent of its
NHS funds to the surface transportation program category. If
the Secretary approves, 100 percent may be transferred. The
federal share of the NHS is 80 percent, with an availability
period of 4 years.
Interstate maintenance.--The 46,567-mile Dwight D.
Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways
retains a separate identity within the NHS. This program
finances projects to rehabilitate, restore, resurface and
reconstruct the Interstate system. Reconstruction of bridges,
interchanges, and over-crossings along existing interstate
routes is also an eligible activity if it does not add capacity
other than high occupancy vehicle (HOV) and auxiliary lanes.
Funds provided for the Interstate maintenance discretionary
program in fiscal year 2003 shall be available for the
following activities in the corresponding amounts:

Project Amount
Freeway Interchange at Lammers Road and I-205, Tracey,
California.......................................... $500,000
Grandview Triangle, Kansas City, Missouri............... 1,000,000
Hawkins Crossing, I-20/59 Interchange, Meridian,
Mississippi......................................... 5,000,000
I-10 Interchange at Grand Prairie Highway, Rayne,
Louisiana........................................... 1,000,000
I-10 Irvington Interchange, Alabama..................... 4,000,000
I-10 Riverside Avenue Interchange, California........... 2,000,000
I-12 at Essen Lane, Louisiana........................... 250,000
I-12 sound barriers, Slidell, Louisiana................. 1,500,000
I-12/Northshore Blvd-Airport Road Interchange
Improvements--St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana......... 1,000,000
I-16 and Dean Forest Road Interchange, Georgia.......... 250,000
I-16/I-516 Interchange design and reconstruction,
Georgia............................................. 1,000,000
I-16/I-95 Interchange Reconstruction Concept Study
Chatham County, Georgia............................. 250,000
I-235 reconstruction, Polk County, Iowa................. 2,800,000
I-235/Harrison Avenue off-ramp and Walnut Avenue
Relocation, Oklahoma................................ 1,200,000
I-26 Little Mountain Interchange improvements, South
Carolina............................................ 500,000
I-29 Madison Street interchange, Sioux Falls, South
Dakota.............................................. 2,500,000
I-295 Interchange at Meadowville Road, Chesterfield
County, Virginia.................................... 500,000
I-35 East/I-635 interchange, Texas...................... 750,000
I-35W Lake Street Access, Minnesota..................... 9,000,000
I-40 and Paseo del Volcan Interchange and Access Road to
Double Eagle II, Albuquerque, New Mexico............ 2,000,000
I-44 Interchanges at SH-51 and US-169, Tulsa, Oklahoma.. 750,000
I-44, Phelps County, Missouri........................... 2,250,000
I-49 North to the Arkansas Line (Access Improvements to
I-220 @ US 71/LA 1 & LA 172), Louisiana............. 1,000,000
I-540 & Perry Road Interchange, Rogers, Arkansas........ 2,000,000
I-64, Vanderburgh and Posey counties, Indiana........... 1,000,000
I-69/SR 304 (construction Odom Road to I-55),
Mississippi......................................... 2,000,000
I-70/MD85/MD355 intersection reconstruction, Maryland... 1,000,000
I-74 Reconstruction, Mississippi River Bridge
Replacement, Scott County, Iowa..................... 950,000
I-75 Exits 49 and 52, McMinn County, Tennessee.......... 500,000
I-75, Rockcastle County, Kentucky....................... 4,500,000
I-77/Shuffel Road interchange, Canton, Ohio............. 1,000,000
I-80 Colfax Narrows Project, Placer County, California.. 250,000
I-81 Interchange, Syracuse, New York.................... 1,300,000
I-84/Exit 17 at Routes 63 and 64, Middlebury/Waterbury,
Connecticut......................................... 2,000,000
I-84/I-87 Interchange, New York......................... 1,500,000
I-84/Route 2 East Hartford, operational improvements,
Connecticut (flyover access)........................ 1,000,000
I-90 two-way transit operations, Washington............. 500,000
I-96/Cedar/Pennsylvania Interchange, Michigan........... 450,000
Interstate 40: Mississippi River Bridge Seismic
Retrofit, Arkansas.................................. 1,000,000
Interstate 5, Rush Road to Maytown widening, Washington. 1,000,000
Interstate 5, Salem, Oregon (Boone Road Bridge
replacement)........................................ 1,000,000
Interstate Highway 35 perpetual pavement testing
section, LaSalle County, Texas...................... 1,000,000
Interstate Highway 45 frontage road and ramp system
improvements, Huntsville, Texas..................... 1,000,000
Interstate Highway 30 in Texarkana from FM 989 (Kings
Highway) in Bowie County, Texas to the Arkansas
state line (US 71).................................. 1,000,000
Laval Road Interchange Upgrade at I-5, California....... 500,000
Louisville-Southern Indiana Ohio River Bridges Project,
Indiana............................................. 4,000,000
Louisville-Southern Indiana Ohio River Bridges Project,
Kentucky............................................ 4,000,000
Marquette Interchange, Milwaukee, Wisconsin............. 6,000,000
Needs assessment study of the I-84/Route 8 interchange,
Waterbury, Connecticut.............................. 1,000,000
New York State Thruway Authority, Westchester County,
Bryam Bridge rehabilitation and pavement
reconstruction, New York............................ 1,000,000
Port Everglades-Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood Airport Return
Loop, Florida....................................... 1,000,000
Reconstruction of I-135, Sedgwick County, Kansas........ 1,000,000
Reconstruction of I-95/I-91/CT 34 Interchange, New
Haven, Connecticut (Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge--I-
95 New Haven East Approach to Q-Bridge)............. 2,000,000
Rehabilitation of I-20, Erath, Palo, Pinto, and Parker
counties, Texas..................................... 2,350,000
Rehabilitation of pavement and bridges on I-95 in
Halifax/Nash Counties, North Carolina............... 1,000,000
Lyndale Avenue Bridge, Richfield, Minnesota............. 3,000,000
Right of way acquisition, Paterson, New Jersey
interchange improvements............................ 200,000
Interstate 79/SR 3025 missing ramps, Jackson Township,
Pennsylvania........................................ 500,000
Tippecanoe/I-10 Interchange and medical center access,
San Bernardino, California.......................... 3,000,000
Waukee/West Des Moines I-80 Interchange, Iowa........... 2,500,000

All remaining federal funding to complete the initial
construction of the interstate system has been provided through
previous highway legislation. TEA-21 provides flexibility to
States in fully utilizing remaining unobligated balances of
prior Interstate Construction authorizations. States with no
remaining work to complete the interstate system may transfer
any surplus Interstate Construction funds to their interstate
maintenance program. States with remaining completion work on
Interstate gaps or open-to-traffic segments may relinquish
interstate construction fund eligibility for the work and
transfer the federal share of the cost to their interstate
maintenance program.
Surface transportation program.--The surface transportation
program (STP) is a flexible program that may be used by the
states and localities for any roads (including NHS) that are
not functionally classified as local or rural minor collectors.
These roads are collectively referred to as Federal-aid
highways. Bridge projects paid with STP funds are not
restricted to Federal-aid highways but may be on any public
road. Transit capital projects are also eligible under this
program. The total funding for the STP may be augmented by the
transfer of funds from other programs and by minimum guarantee
funds under TEA-21, which may be used as if they were STP
funds. Once distributed to the states, STP funds must be used
according to the following percentages: 10 percent for safety
construction; 10 percent for transportation enhancement; 50
percent divided among areas of over 200,000 population and
remaining areas of the State; and, 30 percent for any area of
the state. Areas of 5,000 population or less are guaranteed an
amount based on previous funding, and 15 percent of the amounts
reserved for these areas may be spent on rural minor
collectors. The federal share for the STP program is 80 percent
with a 4-year availability period.
Bridge replacement and rehabilitation program.--This
program provides assistance for bridges on public roads
including a discretionary set-aside for high cost bridges and
for the seismic retrofit of bridges. Fifty percent of a state's
bridge funds may be transferred to the NHS or the STP, but the
amount of any such transfer is deducted from national bridge
needs used in the program's apportionment formula for the
following year.
Funds provided for the bridge discretionary program in
fiscal year 2003 shall be available for the following
activities in the corresponding amounts:

Project Amount
12th Street Viaduct, Kansas City, Missouri.............. $1,000,000
Batchellerville Bridge replacement, New York............ 3,000,000
Bridge Renovations, Meriden, Connecticut (Hanover/Grove
Street, Hanover/South Butler Street, and approaches
to the Center Street Bridge)........................ 1,000,000
Brown Road Bridge, Anderson County, South Carolina...... 2,000,000
Chattahoochee River Bridge, Roswell, Georgia............ 3,000,000
Chouteau Bridge, Kansas City, Missouri.................. 1,000,000
City of El Paso, Texas, Ysleta Port of entry dedicated
commuter lane....................................... 500,000
CR 528 Mantoloking Bridge, Brick Township, New Jersey... 2,000,000
Gilmerton Bridge Replacement, Chesapeake, Virginia...... 3,000,000
Grand Lagoon Bridge Replacement, Florida................ 1,000,000
Gravina Bridge, Ketchikan, Alaska....................... 2,000,000
Highway 3364 bridge replacement at College Road, Bourbon
County, Kentucky.................................... 200,000
Highway 82, Greenville Bridge, Arkansas................. 3,500,000
Hood River/White Salmon Bridge and toll plaza
resurfacing, Oregon................................. 1,350,000
I-195 Washington Bridge (east bound), Rhode Island...... 2,000,000
I-30 replacement bridge, Dallas, Texas.................. 2,000,000
I-40/Louisiana Interchange, New Mexico.................. 1,000,000
I-95 Bridge, New Haven Replacement of Bridge No. 00163A,
West River, Connecticut............................. 2,000,000
Indian River Inlet Bridge Repair and Planning, Sussex
County, Delaware.................................... 1,000,000
Interstate 74 Mississippi River Bridge between Moline,
Illinois and Bettendorf, Iowa....................... 1,000,000
Iowa/Nebraska Missouri River Bridge--#DPS-34-7(114),
near Plattsmouth, Nebraska.......................... 2,200,000
LA 143-US166 Connector and Ouachita River Bridge,
Louisiana........................................... 500,000
Leeville Bridge, Lafourche parish, Louisiana............ 1,000,000
Lincoln County bridge renovation, Kentucky.............. 1,000,000
Martin Luther King, Jr., Bridge rehabilitation, Ohio.... 4,100,000
McCleary Bridge, Wausau, Wisconsin...................... 5,500,000
Monroe Street Bridge rehabilitation, Washington......... 2,500,000
Randleman Lake Project bridge replacement, North
Carolina............................................ 2,000,000
Red Cliff Arch Bridge (US 24), Minturn, Colorado........ 1,000,000
Replacement of US 34 Missouri River Bridge, Mills
County, Iowa........................................ 1,000,000
Route 52 Causeway Replacement and Somers Point Circle
Elimination, New Jersey............................. 2,000,000
Route 72 Manahawkin Bay Bridges, New Jersey............. 2,000,000
Sauvie Island Bridge, Oregon............................ 1,000,000
SH 6 at Waco, South Bosque River Bridge, McLennan
County, Texas....................................... 4,500,000
Snake River Crossing, Twin Falls, Idaho................. 1,500,000
SR 104/Hood Canal Bridge east half replacement,
Washington.......................................... 1,000,000
Tate's Bluff Bridge Project, Arkansas................... 500,000
US 15 Market Street Bridge Replacement, Williamsport,
Pennsylvania........................................ 4,000,000
US 6 Broadway Street Viaduct, Council Bluffs, Iowa...... 1,000,000
West Broadway Bridge, Patterson, New Jersey............. 350,000
Woodrow Wilson Bridge restoration project, Mississippi.. 2,800,000

Funds provided for seismic retrofit under the bridge
discretionary program in fiscal year 2003 shall be available
for the following activity in the corresponding amount:

Project Amount
Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit..................... $5,000,000

Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement
program.--This program provides funds to states to improve air
quality in non-attainment and maintenance areas. A wide range
of transportation activities are eligible, provided DOT, after
consultation with EPA, determines they are likely to help meet
national ambient air quality standards. TEA-21 provides greater
flexibility to engage public-private partnerships, and expands
and clarifies eligibilities to include programs to reduce
extreme cold starts, maintenance areas, and particulate matter
(PM-10) nonattainment and maintenance areas. If a state has no
non-attainment or maintenance areas, the funds may be used as
if they were STP funds.
On-road and off-road demonstration projects may be
appropriate candidates for funding under the CMAQ program. Both
sectors are critical for satisfying the purposes of the CMAQ
program, including reducing regional emissions and verifying
new mobile source control techniques.
Federal lands highways.--This program provides funding
through four major categories--Indian reservation roads,
parkways and park roads, public lands highways (which
incorporates the previous forest highways category), and
Federally-owned public roads providing access to or within the
National Wildlife Refuge System. TEA-21 also established a new
program for improving deficient bridges on Indian reservation
roads.
Funds provided for the federal lands program in fiscal year
2003 shall be available for the following activities in the
corresponding amounts:
Project Amount
14th Street Bridge Corridor, Virginia................... $7,600,000
17-Mile Road on Wind River Indian Reservation, Fremont
County, Wyoming..................................... 1,000,000
206 Stokes State Park, New Jersey....................... 1,245,000
Abraham Lincoln's birthplace, national historic site,
Kentucky............................................ 600,000
Access roads to Beale Air Force Base, California........ 1,000,000
Arches National Park, Utah.............................. 1,385,000
BIA Route 1281 (Snake Road Realignment & Repair),
Florida............................................. 1,000,000
Black Narrows and Chinoteague Bridge, Virginia.......... 1,180,000
Blackstone River Valley Bikeway, Rhode Island........... 2,000,000
Cape Flattery Tribal Scenic Byway paving project,
Washington.......................................... 3,000,000
Cattle Point Road (San Juan Island)--erosion
remediation, Washington............................. 350,000
City of Boston--Boston Harbor Islands National Park/Long
Island Pier Planning and design, Massachusetts...... 250,000
City of Rocks Back Country Byway, Cassia County, Idaho.. 1,000,000
CN3852 FHP 45-1(5), Sunspot Road, New Mexico............ 1,000,000
Cold Hill Road, Laurel County, Kentucky................. 1,600,000
Construct Regional Tourism Center and Transportation
Hub, Hyde Park, New York............................ 1,500,000
Council Grove Lake/Reservoir from US highways 177 and
56, Kansas.......................................... 1,500,000
Cuyahoga Scenic Rail Line (Canton-Akron-Cleveland
Commuter Rail Project), Ohio........................ 3,000,000
Daniel Boone Parkway, Kentucky.......................... 1,000,000
Forest Highway 87 (FM 201), Sabine National Forest,
Sabine County, Texas................................ 2,000,000
Frog Level Road Improvement, Mississippi................ 5,000,000
GBH Solomon National Cemetery Access, Saratoga, New York 40,000
Highway 26, Oregon...................................... 1,980,000
Homochitto National Forest access road, Lincoln County,
Mississippi......................................... 2,000,000
Hoover Dam Bypass, Arizona.............................. 5,000,000
I-215/I-515 Interchange, Henderson, Nevada.............. 2,000,000
Improved access to Dyess Air Force Base, Texas.......... 1,000,000
Lake Mead National Recreation Area gateway improvements,
Nevada.............................................. 500,000
Land Between the Lakes Roads, Trigg and Lyon counties,
Kentucky............................................ 100,000
Louisiana Highway (LA 117), 4-lane expansion study,
Louisiana........................................... 500,000
Lowell Canalway and Riverwalk Design, Massachusetts..... 780,000
Mammoth Cave Parkway (KY 101), Edmonson County, Kentucky 450,000
Marin Parklands/Muir Woods visitor access, California... 2,000,000
Marysville Road, Montana................................ 1,000,000
Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, SR 164, Washington............ 420,000
Needles Highway, CA/NV Improvements, California......... 2,000,000
Patuxent River Naval Air Station Museum and Visitor
Center, Maryland.................................... 3,400,000
Presidio Trust/Crissy Field transit access improvement,
California.......................................... 1,000,000
Preston North and South Project, Nebraska............... 1,300,000
Ramsey Street extension, Banning, California............ 3,000,000
Rehabilitation of County Route 37 and Alternate Route
37, Jefferson County, New York...................... 750,000
236 Claggett Hill Road Construction with Lewis & Clark
Ferry Boat Facilities, Missouri River, Montana...... 3,000,000
Sotgun Cove Road, City of Whittier, Alaska.............. 2,000,000
Southern Beltway (I-215) upgrade project from Pecos Road
to Stephanie Street and from Interstate 15 to Pecos
Road, Clark County, Nevada.......................... 1,000,000
Spirit Lake Tribe shared use path, Fort Totten, North
Dakota.............................................. 520,000
State Highway 149, Colorado............................. 1,000,000
Tank Destroyer Boulevard, Fort Hood, Texas.............. 2,000,000
Timucuan Preserve bike route, Florida................... 1,000,000
Tombigee National Forest public access improvements,
Mississippi......................................... 1,750,000
Traffic abatement study for highway 98, entrance to
Hurlbert Field, Florida............................. 500,000
Trail Extension at Mount Vernon Circle, Virginia........ 400,000
Tualatin River NWR Turn Lanes, Oregon................... 900,000
USMC Heritage Center Access Improvements, Virginia...... 2,000,000
Western MD Low Impact Welcome Center at Byron Overlook,
Maryland............................................ 800,000
Widening and rehabilitation of FM 2500, Polk County,
Texas............................................... 1,000,000
Woonsocket Depot rehabilitation, Rhode Island........... 1,000,000

The Committee directs that the funds allocated above be
derived from the FHWA's public lands discretionary program, and
not from funds allocated to the Fish and Wildlife Service's and
National Park Service's regions.
Minimum guarantee.--Under TEA-21, after the computation of
funds for major Federal-aid programs, additional funds are
distributed to ensure that each State receives an additional
amount based on equity considerations. This minimum guarantee
provision ensures that each State will have a return of 90.5
percent on its share of contributions to the highway account of
the Highway Trust Fund. To achieve the minimum guarantee each
fiscal year, $2.8 billion nationally is available to the States
as though they are STP funds (except that requirements related
to set-asides for transportation enhancements, safety, and sub-
State allocations do not apply), and any remaining amounts are
distributed among core highway programs.
Emergency relief.--This program provides for the repair and
reconstruction of Federal-aid highways and Federally-owned
roads which have suffered serious damage as the result of
natural disasters or catastrophic failures. TEA-21 restates the
program eligibility specifying that emergency relief (ER) funds
can be used only for emergency repairs to restore essential
highway traffic, to minimize the extent of damage resulting
from a natural disaster or catastrophic failure, or to protect
the remaining facility and make permanent repairs. If ER funds
are exhausted, the Secretary of Transportation may borrow funds
from other highway programs.
High priority projects.--TEA-21 includes 1,850 high
priority projects specified by the Congress. Funding for these
projects totals $9.5 billion over the 6 year period with a
specified percentage of the project funds made available each
year. Unlike demonstration projects in the past, the funds for
TEA-21 high priority projects are subject to the Federal-aid
obligation limitation, but the obligation limitation associated
with the projects does not expire.
Appalachian development highway system.--This program makes
funds available to construct highways and access roads under
section 201 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of
1965. Under TEA-21, funding is authorized at $450,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 1999-2003; is available until expended;
and distributed based on the latest available cost-to-complete
estimate.
National corridor planning and border infrastructure
programs.--TEA-21 established a new national corridor planning
and development program that provides funds for the coordinated
planning, design, and construction of corridors of national
significance, economic growth, and international or
interregional trade. Allocations may be made to corridors
identified in section 1105(c) of ISTEA and to other corridors
using considerations identified in legislation. The coordinated
border infrastructure program is established to improve the
safe movement of people and goods at or across the U.S./
Canadian and U.S./Mexican borders.
Funds provided for the national corridor planning and
border infrastructure programs in fiscal year 2003 shall be
available for the following activities in the corresponding
amounts:

Project Amount
12 Mile Road, Orchard Lake Road to Middlebelt Road,
Michigan............................................ $750,000
Alameda Corridor East, Los Angeles County, California... 1,000,000
Appalachian Development Highway System, Corridor V,
Mississippi......................................... 500,000
Appalachian North-South Corridor Study on US Route 220,
West Virginia....................................... 1,000,000
Barton River Port Industrial Park, US Hwy 72, Colbert
County, Alabama..................................... 1,500,000
Baseline Road Project--Isabella County, Michigan........ 500,000
Bomber Road, Fort Worth, Texas.......................... 1,000,000
Clay/Leslie Industrial Park Access, Kentucky............ 570,000
County Road 1050 Bridge over Embarrase River to SR 130,
Cumberland County, Illinois......................... 2,000,000
County Road 222 Bridge, Cullman County, Alabama......... 1,000,000
Cross Harbor Freight Movement Project Environmental
Impact Statement, New York.......................... 2,000,000
Dempster Commercial Corridor Improvements--Village of
Morton Grove, Illinois.............................. 500,000
Donna-Rio Bravo International Border Crossing, Texas.... 1,000,000
Effingham-Teutoplois Road, Illinois..................... 1,000,000
EIS for State Rt 75, Coronado Tunnel, California........ 1,500,000
Fairmont Gateway Connector (I-79 Connector), West
Virginia............................................ 2,000,000
Gateway Corridor Initiative, Indiana.................... 850,000
Granite Falls Alternate Route Project, Washington....... 1,000,000
Heartland Expressway (SD79), South Dakota............... 500,000
Highway 100 (Collins Road)--Cedar Rapids, Iowa.......... 750,000
Highway 231 Glover Carey Bridge and Owensboro
intersection, Kentucky.............................. 800,000
Highway 412 Springdale Bypass, Springdale, Arkansas..... 1,778,000
Highway 52 Corridor Plan, Intersection of US Hwy 52 at
Dakota City, Rd 47, Minnesota....................... 1,000,000
Highway 55 Corridor Preservation--I-494 in Hennepin
County to Annadale--Wright County, Minnesota........ 1,500,000
Highway 71 Texarkana South, Arkansas.................... 1,000,000
Highway 71, Alma--Greenwood, Arkansas................... 1,000,000
Highway Improvements along T.H. 13 corridor near Ports
of Savage, Minnesota................................ 1,000,000
Highway US 12 Phase II, between Burbank and Walla Walla,
Washington.......................................... 1,000,000
Hot Springs Bypass, Highway 270 to Highway 5/7, Arkansas 1,000,000
Hwy 15 Bridge Replacements, Jasper County, Bay Springs,
Mississippi......................................... 1,000,000
I-35 expansion, Hill County, Texas...................... 1,500,000
I-35/127th Street Overpass, Olathe, Kansas.............. 1,000,000
1-39 (Stevens Point--Mosinee, Wisconsin)................ 2,000,000
I-40 Crosstown Expressway realignment, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma............................................ 1,000,000
I-59 and FM 2919, Isleib, Texas......................... 500,000
I-65 and County Road 24 interchange, Limestone County,
Alabama............................................. 1,500,000
I-66, Pike County, Kentucky............................. 2,000,000
I-69 Connector from I-530 in Pine Bluff, Arkansas....... 1,000,000
I-69 Corridors 18 and 20, Texas......................... 3,000,000
I-69/Great River Bridge: Highway 65--Mississippi Highway
1, Mississippi...................................... 5,250,000
I-75--Laurel County, Kentucky........................... 1,000,000
I-99 Frankstown Road, Pennsylvania...................... 200,000
IH 35--FM 2484 Amity Road, Shankin Road Overpass--Bell
County, Texas....................................... 2,000,000
Illinois Pioneer Parkway and Growth Cell Infrastructure
Improvements, Peoria................................ 1,000,000
Illinois Route 29, Berry and Edinburg, Illinois......... 1,000,000
Industrial park access improvements, Escambia County,
Atmore, Alabama..................................... 1,000,000
Intermodal Transportation study for corridor from
Atlanta to Chattanoga, Tennessee.................... 750,000
Lakeland In-Town Bypass, Florida........................ 200,000
Lincoln bypass--SR 65/Westwood Interchange Construction,
California.......................................... 2,000,000
Lincoln Highway 65 Widening (The Gap) Project,
California.......................................... 500,000
Martel Road Underpass--Loudon County Tennessee.......... 750,000
Meridian Bridge Replacement--US 81 Missouri River--
Yankton, South Dakota............................... 500,000
Monticello Street Overpass, Kentucky.................... 7,750,000
Mississippi Highway 44/Pearl River Bridge Extension
Project............................................. 2,000,000
New Corridor Land Acquisition; Westlake--North Olmstead/
Crocker--Stearns Connection, Ohio................... 500,000
New York Avenue Between 11th Street and Nassau Road--
Huntington Station, New York........................ 500,000
North Street Corridor, Fitchburg, Massachusetts......... 800,000
Old Highway 471, Rankin County, Mississippi............. 1,000,000
Port Connector Road, Pine Bluff/Jefferson County,
Arkansas............................................ 900,000
PA 501 Schaefferstown Bypass, Lebanon County,
Pennsylvania........................................ 620,000
Railroad Avenue Extension--Berkeley County, South
Carolina............................................ 750,000
Ranchero Road/Cajon Line Grade Separation, California... 750,000
River Road from Beargrass Creek to Zorn Avenue, Kentucky 1,000,000
Roosevelt Connector--Pinellas County, Florida........... 10,000,000
Route 1/9, 35 Interchange, New Jersey................... 750,000
Route 116 planning and design, Amherst, Massachusetts... 800,000
Route 12--Auburn Veteran's Memorial Corridor, Auburn,
Massachusetts....................................... 250,000
Route 2 Improvements in Erving, Orange, Massachusetts... 4,400,000
Route 334/Derr Road, Ohio............................... 1,000,000
Route 422 East, Between New Castle and Rose Point,
Pennsylvania........................................ 250,000
Route 67, St. Francois County, Missouri................. 250,000
Route 7 Bypass West of Leesburg (Loudoun County/Town of
Leesburg), Virginia................................. 1,750,000
Route 72 Relocation--Briston, Connecticut............... 1,500,000
Route 79 Relocation and Harbor Enhancement--Fall River,
Massachusetts....................................... 500,000
South Avis Industrial Access Road, Pennsylvania......... 500,000
Northern bypass around Somerset, Kentucky............... 2,500,000
Southern Mahoning County US 62/SR 14 Bypass, Ohio....... 1,000,000
Southern bypass around Somerset, Kentucky............... 1,500,000
SR 247 and SR 2008, Moosic Mountain Business Park,
Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania..................... 500,000
State Highway 158--US 87 to 4.75 miles west--Sterling
County, Texas....................................... 1,000,000
State Route 0039 (Hershey Road) and I-81 Interchange,
Pennsylvania........................................ 2,700,000
Sterns Road Fox River Bridge Crossing, Illinois......... 4,800,000
STH 29 (Chippewa Falls I-94)--between I-94 and CTH J,
Wisconsin........................................... 2,000,000
Thomas Cole House Access, Catskill, New York............ 22,000
Trunk Highway 23 (TH 71 to CSAH 31), Minnesota.......... 500,000
U.S. 24 Corridor Improvement Study and Implementation,
Ohio................................................ 2,000,000
U.S. 319 Expansion, Florida............................. 3,000,000
U.S. Route 35 Improvements (upgrade road to I-64/US
Route 35), West Virginia............................ 1,500,000
US 20 relocation and right of way, Webster, Iowa........ 1,500,000
US 22 Reconstruction--Export to Delmont, Pennsylvania... 500,000
US 278 Cullman County, Alabama.......................... 200,000
US 280/ US 27 Intersection Improvement--Chattahoochee
County, Georgia..................................... 250,000
US 41 A--Hopkins County, Kentucky....................... 230,000
US 51/SR 43 Connector Road--South Canton Industrial
Access Corridor--Canton, Mississippi................ 500,000
US 60 Carter and Butler Counties, Missouri.............. 1,250,000
US 87 Relief Route, Lamesa, Texas....................... 1,000,000
US Route 422 Transportation Improvement Project,
Pennsylvania........................................ 1,000,000
USH 10 (Stevens Point--Waupaca), Wisconsin.............. 2,000,000
USH 53 (Chippewa Falls-New Auburn, Wisconsin)........... 1,000,000
USH 53 Bypass of Eau Claire, Wisconsin.................. 2,000,000
Veteran's Drive from Broadway to I-474, Pekin, Illinois. 500,000
West End Bypass, Johnstown, Pennsylvania................ 1,000,000
West Laredo Multimodal Trade Corridor, Texas............ 2,500,000
Whatcom County, Cascade Gateway Mobility and Security
Improvements, Washington............................ 1,000,000
Whitley County emergency access road off US 25 W,
Kentucky............................................ 380,000

Ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities.--Section 1207 of
TEA-21 reauthorized funding for the construction of ferry boats
and ferry terminal facilities. TEA-21 also included a new
requirement that $20,000,000 from each of fiscal years 1999
through 2003 be set aside for marine highway systems that are
part of the National Highway System for use by the states of
Alaska, New Jersey and Washington. In fiscal year 2003, TEA-21
provides $38,000,000.
Funds provided for the ferry boats and ferry terminal
facilities program in fiscal year 2003 shall be available for
the following activities in the corresponding amounts:

Project Amount
Beacon and Newburgh cities ferry boat and ferry
facilities, New York................................ $1,100,000
Bridgeport High Speed Ferry Terminal improvements,
Connecticut......................................... 500,000
City of Rochester harbor and ferry terminal
improvements, New York.............................. 1,500,000
Coffman Cove Ferry Terminal, Alaska..................... 500,000
Curtis ferry boat replacement, Maine State Ferry System. 500,000
Ferry Service--Dutchess County, New York................ 1,000,000
Ferry service from Rockaway Peninsula to Manhattan
(Jamaica Bay Transportation Hub), New York.......... 1,000,000
Fishers Island Ferry District, Connecticut.............. 3,000,000
Golden Gate ferry berth facility, San Francisco
Terminal, California................................ 1,000,000
Hatteras Inlet ferry connecting Ocracoke Island and
North Carolina Outer banks, North Carolina.......... 400,000
Jacksonville Ferry Stations (formerly St. Johns River
Ferry Terminal), Florida............................ 500,000
Middle Bass Ferry Dock, Phase II, Ohio.................. 500,000
Newport Harbor water shuttles, Newport, Rhode Island.... 500,000
Palm Beach County Water Taxi Facilities Project, Florida 1,000,000
Plaquemines Parish ferry, Louisiana..................... 500,000
Ponce De Leon Inlet Water Taxi, Volusia County, Florida. 500,000
Port of Galveston, intermodal improvement program, Texas 500,000
Removal and replacement of ferry-dock structure at
Cherry Grove, Fire Island, New York................. 100,000
Savannah Water Ferry, Georgia........................... 500,000
Stamford High Speed Ferry, Connecticut.................. 500,000
State of Vermont, construction of Allen Point Ferry and
ferry terminal facilities, Vermont.................. 200,000
Toledo Hovercraft service development, Ohio............. 1,200,000
Valdez, Alaska, ferry and dock facilities............... 500,000
Winthrop commuter ferry project, Massachusetts.......... 500,000

National scenic byways program.--This program provides
funding for roads that are designated by the Secretary of
Transportation as All American Roads (AAR) or National Scenic
Byways (NSB). These roads have outstanding scenic, historic,
cultural, natural, recreational, and archaeological qualities.
In fiscal year 2003, TEA-21 provides $26,500,000 for this
program. Funds provided for the national scenic byways program
in fiscal year 2003 shall be available for the following
activities in the corresponding amounts:

Project Amount
Berkshire/Franklin Mohawk Trail Scenic Byway & Berkshire
Jacobs Ladder Trail Scenic Byway, Massachusetts..... $1,000,000
Delsea Scenic Byway, Salem, Cumberland, Cape May
Counties, New Jersey................................ 149,000
High Street Revitalization, Lawrenceburg, Indiana....... 1,200,000
Intervale Scenic Vista Project, New Hampshire........... 500,000
Kentucky Scenic Byways.................................. 1,425,000
Mt. Greylock Reservoir Road Improvements, North Adams,
Massachusetts....................................... 1,100,000
Multi-Colored Scenic Byways Signs for Idaho's Scenic,
Historic, and Back County Byways.................... 382,000
New York State Scenic Byways Project: Statewide......... 1,600,000
U.S. Route 40 and National Road, Garrett County,
Maryland............................................ 233,600
Ventura Freeway Scenic Corridor Initiative, California.. 1,000,000
Washington DOT Scenic Byways Statewide Program.......... 1,000,000

Transportation and community and system preservation pilot
program.--TEA-21 established a new transportation and community
and system preservation program that provides grants to states
and local governments for planning, developing, and
implementing strategies to integrate transportation and
community and system preservation plans and practices. These
grants may be used to improve the efficiency of the
transportation system; reduce the impacts of transportation on
the environment; reduce the need for costly future investments
in public infrastructure; and provide efficient access to jobs,
services, and centers of trade.
Funds provided for the transportation and community and
system preservation pilot program in fiscal year 2003 shall be
available for the following activities in the corresponding
amounts:

Project Amount
Arlington Boulevard design enhancements, Virginia....... 100,000
Assembly Street railroad consolidation and grade
crossing elimination, South Carolina................ 500,000
Bronx Center Transportation Project--E 161st Section II:
between Grand Concourse/Sherman Ave and Park, New
York................................................ 700,000
Bronx Center Transportation Project (East 161st Street),
streetscape improvement between Park & 3rd Avenue... 300,000
Bronx River Greenway, Bruckner to Hunts Point Riverside
Park, New York...................................... 700,000
Campaign to Save Oatland's Scenic Vistas, Virginia...... 500,000
Center City/University City bike and pedestrian bridge
improvements, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania............ 100,000
Centredale Village revitalization, Rhode Island......... 100,000
Charlestown, West Virginia Gateway Revitalization
Project............................................. 400,000
City of Fort Worth corridor redevelopment program, Texas 100,000
City-wide automobile insurance feasibility study,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.......................... 100,000
Comprehensive transportation impact study for OH, KY, IN
Regional Council of Governments..................... 200,000
Congestion improvements to Passaic Street, New Jersey... 100,000
Connaught Avenue Street Drainage Project, West Amwell
Township, New Jersey................................ 100,000
Copeland Covered Bridge, Saratoga County, New York...... 28,000
Crawford County and Palestine Illinois Road upgrade,
Illinois............................................ 200,000
Detroit Streetscape Improvements, Michigan.............. 350,000
Detroit Area Regional Transportation Authority (DARTA),
Michigan............................................ 500,000
Eisenhower Avenue Greenway, Phase II, Virginia.......... 100,000
Elkins Railroad Bridge Visitors Center, West Virginia... 600,000
Five Point Improvement Project, Huntsville, Alabama..... 100,000
Gasholder House and Underground Railroad Museum,
Oberlin, Ohio....................................... 100,000
Grade Separation at Intersection of Hamilton Boulevard
over the CSX rail line near US 90, Mobile, Alabama.. 100,000
Grand Illinois Trail bike connections, Illinois......... 100,000
Greeno Road (US98) Pilot Program, Fairhope, Alabama..... 650,000
Haleyville, Alabama downtown revitalization............. 600,000
Harden Street improvements, Columbia, South Carolina.... 500,000
Highway 212 between Norwood Young America and Cologne in
Carver County, Minnesota............................ 1,000,000
Houston Main Street Corridor revitalization project
implementation, Texas............................... 100,000
HUB Business District Project, New York................. 1,000,000
I-73 North Carolina State line to Myrtle Beach, South
Carolina............................................ 272,000
I-84 Exit 11 Danbury/Newton, Connecticut................ 300,000
Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore (IDNL) hike/bike trail
and pedestrian bridge/overpass, Indiana............. 100,000
Jasper, Alabama downtown revitalization................. 150,000
Johnsontown Road, Kentucky.............................. 250,000
Kentucky Trimodal Transpark access road, Kentucky....... 250,000
Lewis and Clark Intepretive Center to Fort Mandan shared
use path, North Dakota.............................. 400,000
Louisville Waterfront/Frankfort Avenue historical
entryway, Kentucky.................................. 300,000
Lower Second Creek Greenway, Knoxville, Tennessee....... 100,000
Marlboro Township traffic improvement project........... 100,000
Massachusetts Wood in Transportation, Mount Wachusett
Community College, Gardner, Massachusetts........... 200,000
Monroe Township intersection signalization project, New
Jersey.............................................. 100,000
Morgan, Menifee, Rowan County Regional Business Park
Access Road, Kentucky............................... 250,000
Multimodal transportation plan, Wisconsin............... 100,000
Multi-use Equestrian and Hiking Trail, Holmes County,
Ohio................................................ 500,000
Pedestrian Access, Rockville, Maryland.................. 150,000
Pedestrian Bridge, 36th Avenue, Robbinsdale, Minnesota.. 750,000
Pine Creek Bridge and Rail-Trail, Pennsylvania.......... 200,000
Pine Mountain Industrial Park Access Road, Kentucky..... 1,500,000
Railroad Avenue Underpass, East Chicago, Indiana........ 500,000
Route 50 traffic calming, Loudoun and Fauquier counties,
Virginia............................................ 750,000
Route 79 Relocation and Harbor Enhancement--Fall River,
Massachusetts....................................... 100,000
Sayville, New York, pedestrian improvements............. 100,000
Simon Kenton Trail, Springfield to Urbana, Ohio......... 750,000
Somerset downtown revitalization, Kentucky.............. 1,800,000
South Suburban Commuter Rail Service (Metra), Illinois.. 100,000
St. Louis economic council community and system
preservation project, Missouri...................... 100,000
St. Petersburg, Florida, Bike/Pedestrian Master Plan.... 600,000
State of New Jersey Department of Motor Vehicle Services
(NJ MVS)............................................ 300,000
Syracuse Lakefront Project, New York.................... 1,000,000
Tiverton Stone Bridge abutment repairs and
beautification, Rhode Island........................ 100,000
Toulon Township, Illinois............................... 100,000
Traffic calming devices and pedestrian streetscape
improvements, Windemere, Florida.................... 325,000
Traffic Calming Devices, Winter Park, Florida........... 325,000
Trinity River Visions, Texas............................ 500,000
Urban Education Development Research and Retreat Center,
Transportation Education and Career Institute,
Pennsylvania........................................ 100,000
VA Cemetery Road, Mobile, Alabama....................... 750,000
Village of Dieterich Industrial Park Road, Illinois..... 100,000
Wichita Riverwalk on Arkansas River, Kansas............. 100,000
Wisconsin 29 and Marathon County Y Intersection......... 500,000

Performance based outcomes.--The Committee recognizes the
impact the performance based outcomes can have on the road
building industry by allowing contractors the freedom and
flexibility to focus on quality and long term performance and
encourage the Department of Transportation to further explore
their use.
Rural consultation.--During the past two years, the
Committee has repeatedly expressed its concern about the lack
of progress FHWA has made in promulgating final rules that
assure a clearly defined and strong role for rural local
elected officials in the statewide transportation planning and
programming processes, as set forth in 1998 in TEA-21. The
Committee is particularly displeased with the supplemental
notice published in the Federal Register on June 19, 2002.
While the Committee understands that this notice represents an
implementation option besides the May 25, 2000 proposal, it is
a proposal that falls far short of the congressional intent. It
essentially retains the status quo by allowing state officials
to determine which local officials they choose to consult,
meaning rural local elected officials in many states would
continue to be left out of vital transportation planning and
programming decisions. The Committee remains firm that FHWA
should immediately promulgate final rules that closely resemble
the May 25, 2000 proposal.
Large Project Management and Oversight.--As evidenced by
the high profile difficulties that have plagued the Central
Artery, Woodrow Wilson Bridge, and Springfield Interchange
projects--including dramatic cost increases and significant
schedule delays--the need for improvement of FHWA's financial
oversight and accountability on large projects cannot be
overemphasized. Although the FHWA has made notable progress in
converting these difficulties into constructive catalysts for
change, the Committee remains concerned about project
management. The Inspector General has noted that FHWA's
traditional engineering focus has inhibited the effective
scrutiny of other major project drivers such as financing, cost
controls, and schedule performance. To successfully refocus on
the evaluation of each state's processes for managing and
overseeing projects, the FHWA will need to evaluate the range
of disciplines and skills within its staff. Specifically, the
Committee directs the FHWA to develop a strategy for achieving
a more multidisciplinary approach towards its oversight
activities, to include: identification of staff with private
sector management skills, such as financing and cost
estimation; streamlining and delegation of project-level
approvals to facilitate greater emphasis upon oversight of
higher-level management and financial issues; and
implementation of a planned data collection system for trend
analysis. The Committee directs FHWA to deliver this strategy
no later than March 3, 2003.
Ambassador Bridge.--The Committee appropriated substantial
funds for critically important direct access improvements
between the Ambassador Bridge/Gateway Project, as authorized in
Section 1217(b) of Public Law 105-178. In obligating all
authorized and appropriated funds for the project, the
Committee expects that the Federal Highway Administration shall
ensure that such funds are used only for the Ambassador Bridge/
Gateway Project. Specifically, the original scope and intent of
the Gateway Project was and continues to permit direct access
and relief from traffic congestion between the Ambassador
Bridge and the trunkline system, including on- and off-ramps to
and from Interstates I-75 and I-96; for local road access
improvements to Porter, 21st and other streets in the
neighboring community; to accommodate access to meet future
border crossing capacity needs and protect plans identified by
the Ambassador Bridge, including a second span of the
Ambassador Bridge; to accommodate access to a proposed
Visitor's Center/Retail Complex on the U.S.-side of the
Ambassador Bridge; and for other planning and environmental
initiatives needed to ensure access improvements and
connectivity to the Ambassador Bridge.
Rural road safety.--The most dangerous automobile travel
occurs on two-lane roads. Accident rates on rural two-lane
roads are double the rates on interstate highways and, in 1999,
77.1% of highway fatalities occurred on two-land roads. The
Committee directs the General Accounting Office to review
Federal funding of rural road safety improvements and whether
some interstate design characteristics could improve rural road
safety. The GAO is to include cost estimates for improvements
to rural road safety and should submit this report one year
from the date of enactment of this act.
Interstate 49 South, Louisiana.--The Committee understands
there is conflicting data regarding the alignment of future
Interstate 49 south below Interstate 10 and directs the
Secretary to review alternative routes, such as the Teche Ridge
route. The Committee believes that a careful review of
alignment alternatives could provide significant savings to the
taxpayer while eliminating a number of environmental concerns.
The Committee directs that this review be done concurrent with
planning, design and construction in other areas of U.S. 90 and
not prevent progress or delay completion of this upgrade.
Costa Mesa, California Susan Street Project.--The Committee
directs the Secretary to review the ``Harbor Boulevard North
Off-Ramp from (I-405 Northbound Distributor Road to Susan
Street'' project in the city of Costa Mesa, California. The
review should include the impacts this construction project
would have with regard to operational and safety implications
and other federal requirements. The results shall be submitted
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 90 days
from the enactment of this Act.
Projects.--In addition to the aforemention projects, funds
shall be available for the following activities in the
corresponding amounts:

Project Amount
Chinese Community Center--Chinatown Study, New York..... $500,000
Clay/Leslie Industrial Park Access, Kentucky............ 430,000
Detroit city center study, Michigan..................... 300,000
Highway 21, Missouri.................................... 340,000
Honeybranch Regional Business Park Access Road, Kentucky 1,650,000
Mobile Port, Waterfront and Transportation Initiative/
Maritime Center of the Gulf of Mexico, Alabama...... 1,000,000
Pearl and Leaf Rivers Rails-to-Trails Recreational
District ``Longleaf Trace,'' Mississippi............ 360,000
Phalen Boulevard, Minnesota............................. 500,000
Southeast Main Avenue / 20th /21st Street Railroad Grade
Separation Project, Minnesota....................... 500,000

(Rescissions)

The Committee includes rescissions of appropriations and
contract authorizations of $5,609,337 in unobligated balances
from completed highway projects in previous highway
authorization and appropriations Acts.

Appalachian, Development Highway System

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002....................... $200,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003...................... ................
Recommended in the bill............................... 100,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002................... -100,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003.................. ................

The Committee recommendation includes $100,000,000 for the
Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS). The amount is
$100,000,000 less than the level provided in fiscal year 2002.
Funding for this initiative is authorized under section 1069(y)
of Public Law 102-240. The ADHS program provides funds for the
construction of the Appalachian corridor highways in the 13
states that comprise the Appalachian region.

FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Summary of Fiscal Year 2003 Program

In November 1999, the Congress passed the Motor Carrier
Safety Improvement Act (P.L. 106-159), which established the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) within the
Department of Transportation. Prior to this legislation, motor
carrier safety responsibilities were housed within the Federal
Highway Administration. The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement
Act (MCSIA) formed a new administration that placed truck and
bus safety on par with other modes of transportation.
The primary mission of FMCSA is to improve the safety of
commercial vehicle operations on our nation's highways. To
accomplish this mission, the FMCSA is focused on reducing the
number and severity of large truck crashes. Agency resources
and activities contribute to ensuring safety in commercial
vehicle operations through enforcement, including the use of
stronger enforcement measures against safety violators;
expedited safety regulation; technology innovation;
improvements in information systems; training; and improvements
to commercial driver's license testing, record keeping, and
sanctions. To accomplish these activities, FMCSA works closely
with federal, state, and local enforcement agencies, the motor
carrier industry, highway safety organizations, and individual
citizens. In addition, FMCSA has the responsibility to ensure
that Mexican Commercial Vehicles, entering the U.S. in
accordance with the North American Free Trade Agreement, meet
all U.S. hazardous material and safety regulations.
MCSIA and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA-21) provide funding authorizations for FMCSA,
including administrative expenses, motor carrier research and
technology, the national motor carrier safety assistance
program (MCSAP) and the information systems and strategic
safety initiatives (ISSSI). FMCSA's scope was expanded in
fiscal year 2002 by the U.S.A. Patriot Act (P.L. 107-56), which
called for new security measures. In addition, the fiscal year
2002 Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-87) increased border
enforcement and safety related activities associated with
implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Motor Carrier Safety

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

The motor carrier safety account provides salaries,
expenses, research, and safety program funding for the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration. The Motor Carrier Safety
Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA) amended section 104(a)(1) of
title 23 to deduct one third of one percent from specified
Federal-aid program funds to fund personnel, and to administer
motor carrier safety programs and motor carrier research. This
mechanism is known as a ``takedown.'' Because the resulting
funding level does not cover current personnel on board,
important safety-related programs, and safety research, the
budget request proposed to amend title 23 and increase the
takedown to 45/100 of one percent. The Committee agrees that
the TEA-21 and MCSIA did not provide sufficient flexibility for
motor carrier safety funding requirements. The $92,857,000
resulting from the takedown required by TEA-21 would require
reductions to important programs, which would compromise
safety. Therefore, instead of increasing the takedown
percentage, the Committee provides an additional $24,587,000
from the highway trust fund for a total $117,444,000 for motor
carrier administration, safety, and research programs,
consistent with the amount requested.

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Limitation on
administrative
expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 \1\.................. ($110,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2003 \2\................. (117,444,000)
Recommended in the bill \3\.......................... (92,857,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002.................. (-17,143,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2003................. (-24,587,000)
\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $158,000 pursuant to section 349 of
P.L. 107-87 as amended by section 1106 of P.L. 107-117.
\2\ Excludes $2,995,000 for CSRS/FEHB accruals requested in the FY 2003
President's Budget.
\3\ Excludes $24,587,000 in direct appropriations.

The recommended level assumes the following adjustments to
the budget request:

Deny FECA administrative costs.......................... -$19,800
Increase hazardous materials safety and security........ +500,000
Undistributed reduction................................. -500,000

The Committee has provided $92,857,000 for the motor
carrier safety account from the limitation on administrative
expenses, plus an additional direct appropriation of
$24,587,000 for a total funding level of $117,444,000. Of the
total provided, $110,444,000 is for operating expenses and
$7,000,000 is for research and technology initiatives.
FECA administrative costs.--The Committee has reduced
funding by $19,800 from the budget request for workers
compensation administrative costs as explained in this report.
Hazardous materials safety and security.--The Committee
provides a total of $758,000, $500,000 above the budget
request, to assess hazardous materials security and incident
risks to meet national security and safety needs, and to
develop strategies to minimize risks of transporting hazardous
materials.
Share the road program.--Statistics for 1999 show that 78
percent of all fatal truck crashes are collisions between large
trucks and other vehicles. Data from 1998 indicate that in
approximately 81 percent of fatal crashes between large trucks
and other vehicles, the passenger vehicle driver was found to
be at fault. The safety community asserts that the share the
road program's main campaign, focused on warning noncommercial
drivers to avoid truck blind spots is not effective. The
Committee directs the General Accounting Office to evaluate the
effectiveness of the Share the Road program and submit the
study to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by
April 1, 2003.
Commercial drivers license program.--The Committee includes
$10,000,000, consistent with the budget request, for the
commercial drivers license (CDL) program from the office of
motor carrier safety. For many years, the Committee has stated
that more work needs to be done to address deficiencies in the
CDL program and the Committee continues to strongly encourage
the use of MCSAP funding for programs that enhance state driver
record information systems, to speed the entry of convictions
onto the driving record and ensure that records are complete.
The 2002 supplemental appropriations act (P.L. 107-206)
provided an additional $17,300,000 to correct flaws in the CDL
program, including funds to complete background checks on CDL
drivers as directed by the U.S.A. Patriot Act, and to develop
and implement fraud detection and prevention techniques for
state licensing and enforcement agencies. The Committee is
concerned that the final ruling implementing the U.S.A. Patriot
Act requirements has yet to be issued.
The Inspector General included recommendations in its May
8, 2002 report, Improving testing and licensing of commercial
drivers, to strengthen state CDL programs and to improve
FMCSA's oversight of the programs. The Committee urges FMCSA to
implement these recommendations in a timely fashion.
Within the funds provided for the CDL program, FMCSA should
continue working with the American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, lead
MCSAP agencies and licensing agencies to improve all aspects of
the CDL program. In addition, FMCSA should consider sponsoring
another pilot project involving law enforcement and driver
licensing agencies to explore new and innovative ways to ensure
that drivers who have been convicted of a disqualifying offense
do not operate during the period of suspension or revocation.
Finally, FMCSA should continue to support the judicial and
prosecutorial outreach effort.
Untethered truck trailer tracking and security.--Truck
trailers pose a significant potential security threat since
they provide an easy means to transport dangerous cargoes. In
addition, the inability to track freight movements causes
inefficiencies in the intermodal freight transportation system,
increasing operating costs and congestion, and decreasing
safety, economic competitiveness, and air quality. While
commercially available technology can track a trailer when it
is tethered to a cab, commercially available technologies are
needed to track and control an untethered trailer. Within the
funds provided for FMCSA's limitation on administrative
expenses and high priority initiative program, the Committee
has provided $2,000,000 to leverage existing technology and
develop an untethered trailer tracking and control system that
will provide real-time trailer identification, location,
geofensing, unscheduled movement notification, door sensors,
and alarms.
Solid waste shippers.--Interstate truck shipments of solid
waste are subject to all of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
regulations and standards as well as each state's Environmental
Agency's regulations. Although garbage, refuse, and trash
carriers account for 3 percent of the fatal truck crashes,
preliminary information from the motor carrier management
information system indicate that these carriers have a 5
percent higher vehicle out of service rate in fiscal year 2002
as compared to the overall truck population. Therefore, the
Committee directs FMCSA to work with the Commonwealth of
Virginia's MCSAP agency and conduct three one-day concentrated
roadside inspections strike forces on interstate waste haulers.
If the safety data warrants, the agency shall notify and advise
other states of safety concerns regarding motor carriers
domiciled in that state so they may take appropriate action.
The reviews conducted shall be compiled and analyzed in a
letter submitted to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations before July 1, 2003.
Truck crash causation study.--The Committee understands
that a committee empanelled by NHTSA and the FMCSA for review
of the Truck Crash Causation Study (TCCS) has transmitted a
number of memorandums to FMCSA detailing several major concerns
and misgivings about the basic design and conduct of the TCCS.
The Committee understands that FMCSA has taken the concerns of
this panel into account and has made numerous changes to its
forms, procedures, and research design. The Committee directs
that this revised research design be reviewed by the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics and published for public comment.
BTS's review shall be provided to the House and Senate
Committee on Appropriations.

National Motor Carrier Safety Program

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORITY)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(Liquidation of
contract (Limitation on
authorization) obligations)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 ($205,896,000) ($205,896,000)
\1\............................
Budget request, fiscal year 2003 (190,000,000) (190,000,000)
Recommended in the bill......... (190,000,000) (190,000,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year (-15,896,000) (-15,896,000)
2002...........................
Budget request, fiscal year .................. ..................
2003...........................
\1\ $23,896,000 was provided from revenue aligned budget authority
(RABA) as authorized in FY2002.

The FMCSA's national motor carrier safety program (NMCSP)
was authorized by TEA-21 and amended by the Motor Carrier
Safety Improvement Act of 1999. This program consists of two
major areas: the motor carrier safety assistance program
(MCSAP) and the information systems and strategic safety
initiatives (ISSSI) program. MCSAP provides grants and project
funding to states to develop and implement national programs
for the uniform enforcement of federal and state rules and
regulations concerning motor carrier safety. The major
objective of this program is to reduce the number and severity
of accidents involving commercial motor vehicles. Grants are
made to qualified states for the development of programs to
enforce the federal motor carrier safety and hazardous
materials regulations and the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety
Act of 1986. The basic program is targeted at roadside vehicle
safety inspections of both interstate and intrastate commercial
motor vehicle traffic. ISSSI provides funds to develop and
enhance data-related motor carrier programs.
The Committee recommends $190,000,000 in liquidating cash
for this program.

LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of
$190,000,000 for the national motor carrier safety program.
This is the level authorized under the Motor Carrier Safety
Improvement Act of 1999, which amended TEA-21. Although this is
a reduction compared to fiscal year 2002 funding, a total of
$23,896,000 was due to revenue aligned budget authority
available in 2002. Therefore, the fiscal year 2003 funding
level is an increase of $8,000,000 from the underlying
authorization of $182,000,000 for NMCSP in fiscal year 2002.
The Committee recommends the allocation of funds as
follows:

Motor carrier safety assistance program................. $170,000,000
Basic motor carrier safety grants................... (130,329,000)
Performance based incentive grant program........... (16,108,000)
Border assistance................................... (8,250,000)
High-priority activities............................ (8,250,000)
State training and administration................... (2,063,000)
Crash causation (Sec. 224(f) MCSIA)................. (5,000,000)
Information systems and strategic safety initiatives.... 20,000,000
Information systems................................. (5,200,000)
Motor carrier analysis.............................. (8,800,000)
Implementation of PRISM............................. (5,000,000)
Driver programs..................................... (1,000,000)

Border Enforcement Program

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Enacted in 1993 and entered into force in 1994, the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was based on the premise
that all of the countries in North America would be integrated
into one free trade area. Under NAFTA's original timeline, the
U.S. and Mexico agreed to permit commercial vehicle access to
each other's border states by December 18, 1995. Reciprocal
access beyond the border states was promised by January 1,
2000. (Canadian carriers have been operating throughout the
United States since 1982.) The NAFTA timetable also called for
the United States and Mexico to lift all restrictions on
regular route, scheduled cross-border bus service by January 1,
1997.
In December 1995, the prior administration postponed
implementation of NAFTA cross-border trucking provisions, which
continued to limit Mexican trucks to operations in designated
commercial zones within Arizona, California, New Mexico, and
Texas. A NAFTA arbitration panel concluded in February 2001
that the U.S. blanket refusal to process the applications of
Mexican carriers seeking U.S. authority because of concerns
over the carriers' safety was in breach of its NAFTA
obligations. The current administration has assured Mexico that
the U.S. will move in a timely manner to meet NAFTA
obligations.
In February 2001, the Administration announced it would
fully comply with NAFTA obligations regarding truck and bus
access. Concerns regarding safety compliance and monitoring of
Mexican-domiciled commercial vehicles were resolved in Section
350 of the Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2002 (P.L. 107-87), and a total of $139,832,000 was
provided for border safety enforcement in FY 2002 under Federal
Highway Administration and FMCSA appropriations, including:
$17,666,000 under the Motor Carrier Safety limitation on
administrative expenses; $28,000,000 for state operations
grants under the national motor carrier safety program account;
$25,866,00 under section 350; and $68,300,000 for inspection
station construction and land acquisition under FHWA
coordinated border infrastructure program.
The Administration has affirmed its commitment to open the
border to Mexican-domiciled commercial vehicles and to
implement a regime of regulations to ensure safety. DOT has
been inspecting Mexican trucks and buses at the border since
1995, and in fiscal year 2003, FMCSA's border enforcement
program will support 274 Federal border enforcement personnel,
more than four times the number at the border in fiscal year
2001.

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 \1\................... $25,866,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003 \2\.................. 59,967,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 59,967,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002................... +34,101,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003.................. (0)
\1\ Does not include $19,300,000 in emergency supplemental funding
provided in P.L. 107-206 to implement the USA Patriot Act and for
other security-related programs.
\2\ Does not include CSRS/FEHB accruals of $941,000 requested in the FY
2003 President's Budget.

Consistent with the budget request, the Committee
recommends $41,967,000 for Federal border enforcement staffing
and operations and $18,000,000 for state operations grants to
the southern border-states.
Additional border enforcement related funding is also
provided in this bill including $8,250,000 for state operations
grants under the national motor carrier safety program account
and $47,000,000 for inspection station construction from FHWA's
limitation on administrative expenses. Dedicated funding for
border safety in FY 2003 totals $115,217,000.
The Committee has extended a provision from the fiscal year
2002 appropriations act regarding the safety of cross-border
trucking between the United States and Mexico. While the safety
of Mexico-domiciled trucks operating in the United States
commercial zones has improved over the past year as measured by
out of service order rates, the Committee expects FMCSA and DOT
to continue to closely monitor the safety and security of all
Mexico-domiciled motor carriers operating within the United
States. The Committee directs that the Secretary report
annually on the safety and security of the United States
southern border with regard to motor carrier transportation
into the United States by Mexico-domiciled motor carriers.

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Summary of Fiscal Year 2003 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. The
administration's current programs are authorized in four major
laws: (1) the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act
(chapter 301 of title 49, U.S.C.); (2) the Highway Safety Act
(chapter 4 of title 23, U.S.C.); (3) the Motor Vehicle
Information and Cost Savings Act (MVICSA) (Part C of subtitle
VI of title 49, U.S.C.); and (4) the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century (TEA-21).
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.
The second law provides for coordinated national highway
safety programs (section 402) to be carried out by the states
and for 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 third law (MVICSA) provides for the establishment of
low-speed collision bumper standards, consumer information
activities, diagnostic inspection demonstration projects,
automobile content labeling, and odometer regulations. An
amendment to this law established the Secretary's
responsibility, which was delegated to NHTSA, for the
administration of mandatory automotive fuel economy standards.
A 1992 amendment to the MVICSA established automobile content
labeling requirements.
The fourth law (TEA-21) reauthorizes the full range of
NHTSA programs and enacts a number of new initiatives. These
include: safety incentives to prevent operation of motor
vehicles by intoxicated persons (section 163 of title 23
U.S.C.); seat belt incentive grants (section 157 of title 23
U.S.C.); occupant protection incentive grants (section 405);
and a highway safety data improvement incentive grant program
(section 411). TEA-21 also reauthorized highway safety
research, development and demonstration programs (section 403)
to include research measures that may deter drugged driving,
educate the motoring public on how to share the road safely
with commercial motor vehicles, and provide vehicle pursuit
training for police. Finally, TEA-21 adopts a number of new
motor vehicle safety and information provisions, including
rulemaking directions for improving air bag crash protection
systems, lobbying restrictions, exemptions from the odometer
requirements for classes or categories of vehicles the
Secretary deems appropriate, and adjustments to the automobile
domestic content labeling requirements.
In 2000, the Transportation Recall Enhancement,
Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act amended the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in numerous
respects and enacted many new initiatives. These consist of a
number of new motor vehicle safety and information provisions,
including a requirement that manufacturers give NHTSA notice of
safety recalls or safety campaigns in foreign countries
involving motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment
that are identical or substantially similar to vehicles or
equipment in the United States; higher civil penalties for
violations of the law; a criminal penalty for violations of the
law's reporting requirements; and a number of rulemaking
directions that include developing a dynamic rollover test for
light duty vehicles, updating the tire safety and labeling
standards, improving the safety of child restraints, and
establishing a child restraint safety rating consumer
information program.

Traffic Safety Trends

After dipping to a low of 39,250 in 1992, the nation over
the past five years has experienced a fairly constant number of
traffic related fatalities at or just below 42,000 per year.
The latest NHTSA estimates indicate fatalities in 2001 were
42,116, which is marginally more than the 41,945 traffic
related deaths in 2000. However, motorcycle rider deaths
continued to increase, with 3,181 riders killed in 2001
compared to 2,897 in 2000. Additionally, passenger car
fatalities were down, 20,233 in 2001 compared to 20,699 in
2000, whereas fatalities in light trucks, vans and sport
utility vehicles increased, 11,677 in 2001 compared to 11,526
in 2000. In comparing 2000 to 2001, the number of police-
reported nonfatal crashes reduced from 6,356,000 in 2000 to
6,285,000 in 2001. The number of injured persons declined
significantly from 3,189,000 in 2000 to 3,033,000 in 2001. The
fatality rate in 2001 has declined to 1.52 deaths per
100,000,000 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from 1.53 deaths in
2000. The following graphs show the safety trends for total
fatalities and the fatality rate for the past two decades.

Operations and Research

(Highway trust
(General fund) fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002. $127,780,000 $74,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003 126,445,000 74,000,000
\1\............................
Recommended in the bill......... 131,433,000 74,000,000
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year +3,653,000 ..................
2002...........................
Budget request, fiscal year +4,988,000 ..................
2003...........................
\1\ Excludes $4,437,000 for CSRS/FEHB accruals.

For fiscal year 2003, the Administration requested a total
of $200,445,000 for NHTSA's operations and research activities.
Funding was to be allocated from three different accounts.
First, the Administration requested $72,000,000 of contract
authority from the highway trust fund to finance NHTSA's
operations and research activities under 23 U.S.C. 403. This
funding is included within the firewall guarantee for highway
spending. Second, the Administration requested $126,445,000
from the general fund for operations and research activities
under sections 30102 and 30104 of title 49 U.S.C. Third, the
budget included an authorization from the highway trust fund of
$2,000,000 for the National Driver Register. The latter two
requests are subject to appropriations.
The Committee recommends new budget authority and
obligation limitations for a total program level of
$205,433,000, a two percent increase above fiscal year 2002. Of
this total, $131,433,000 is for operations and research from
the general fund; $72,000,000 is for 23 U.S.C. 403 activities
from the highway trust fund; and $2,000,000 is for the National
Driver Register from the highway trust fund. This is
essentially a current services budget, with a few minor
exceptions. The funding shall be distributed as follows:

Salaries and benefits................................... $63,316,000
Travel.................................................. 1,324,000
Operating expenses...................................... 22,949,000
Contract programs:
Safety performance.................................. 10,393,000
Safety assurance.................................... 15,760,000
Highway safety programs............................. 41,163,000
Research and analysis............................... 61,021,000
General administration.............................. 657,000
Grant administration reimbursements..................... -11,150,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 205,433,000

Reorganization.--NHTSA reorganized in fiscal year 2002. The
objectives of the reorganization were two-fold. First, the
reorganization sought to improve internal management of the
behavioral and vehicle safety programs by better aligning
resources with responsibilities. Second, the reorganization was
directed at improving communication and coordination with
external partners, especially with State and local highway
organizations. Because funding was not altered among the
salaries and benefits or contract programs, the department was
not required to submit a reprogramming request for
Congressional approval.
The Committee is aware of extensive dissatisfaction and a
significant drop in morale following the reorganization. While
temporary dissatisfaction can be expected when programs and
responsibilities are altered, if low morale and a resulting
decline in program effectiveness continues into fiscal year
2003, the Administrator should be prepared to address the
negative results of this reorganization during the fiscal year
2004 hearing cycle.
FECA administrative costs.--The Committee has denied the
FECA administrative costs included in the budget request
(-$12,000). This policy is consistent across all modal
administrations funded in this bill.
Seat belts.--In February 2002, the Department revised its
unrealistic seat belt usage goals from 85 percent in 2000 and
90 percent in 2005 to 78 percent in 2003. Over the past few
years, NHTSA has worked aggressively with states to increase
the seat belt usage rates, up from the mid-60s to 73 percent in
2001. Most notably, the ``Click it or Ticket'' program,which
involves high visibility enforcement by multiple law
enforcement agencies combined with extensive media coverage of
the program, has dramatically increased seat belt usage rates.
For the 49 states that participated in the May 2002
mobilization, preliminary data shows that there was a
significant increase in seat belt usage. For example, Vermont
showed a 19 percent increase and West Virginia had a 15 percent
increase. The Committee applauds these increases, but NHTSA
should not rest on its laurels. A highly visible and sustained
seat belt campaign must continue throughout 2003 if the agency
hopes to reach the 78 percent goal. The Committee directs NHTSA
not to divert funds from these efforts to other activities.
State data safety grants.--Included within the total for
research and analysis is $3,000,000 for state data safety
grants. The Committee is strongly supportive of continuing the
state highway data safety improvements program in fiscal year
2003. This program was authorized by TEA-21 only through fiscal
year 2002. Most states have applied for these grants in the
past and funding has been used to improve the timeliness,
accuracy, uniformity, and accessibility of state data that is
used by the federal government, states and localities to
improve highway and traffic safety programs. These funds can
also be used to improve the compatibility of state data with
national data systems and/or data systems in other states,
which enhances NHTSA's ability to observe and analyze national
trends in accident and fatality rates. A failure to continue
this program may limit future improvements states may make to
their data systems, due to a lack of funding, and may reduce
NHTSA's ability to compare state data nationwide. It is the
Committee's understanding that NHTSA plans to request the
continuation of this grant program during reauthorization next
year, which makes fiscal year 2003 funding critical to prevent
a gap in the program.
Crash causation study.--The Committee has provided
$2,000,000 for NHTSA to begin updating its 23 year old crash
causation study. While NHTSA continues to utilize the data from
this old study, the information is clearly outdated. For
example, the use of minivans, light trucks and sport utility
vehicles were virtually nonexistent 23 years ago; vehicle
technologies, such as antilock braking systems and stability
control systems, did not exist; and distracting devices, such
as cell phones and in-vehicle navigation systems, had not been
introduced. An updated study is necessary so that NHTSA can
continue to work on achieving substantial reductions in highway
fatalities and injuries, particularly in those hard to reach
areas such as alcohol-related fatalities and motorcycle
fatalities. This study will assist NHTSA researchers in
identifying and creating new initiatives for their crash
avoidance and countermeasures programs (i.e. those programs
designed to develop new techniques to prevent crashes from
occurring). The Committee believes it is imperative to begin
this work in 2003 because NHTSA is in the process of completing
a large truck crash causation study. Beginning a broader crash
causation study as the truck study is concluding will reduce
startup costs and shorten the timeframe for this follow-on work
because NHTSA will be able to make use of the contract already
in place.
Impaired driving.--For the past two years, alcohol-related
traffic fatalities have increased by the largest percentage on
record. These increases are particularly disturbing because
total alcohol-related traffic fatalities had dropped from 57
percent in 1982 to a low of 38 percent in 1998. Now over 40
percent of all traffic fatalities are alcohol related.
This summer, NHTSA has repeatedly announced that it will
intensify its work in 2003 to reverse the trend in alcohol-
related fatalities. However, after repeated questioning, the
agency has been unable to explain what new initiatives will be
undertaken. The bill fully funds the agency's 2003 budget
request for impaired driving (under section 403) as submitted
in February. However the Committee expects NHTSA to revise this
budget request to reflect the agency's change in mission by
November 2002 and inform the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations about these changes. Some areas that NHTSA may
want to consider are: working more aggressively with states to
reduce underage drinking, reinvigorating the court monitoring
program, and working more closely with the judicial system
(both judges and prosecutors) to increase penalties on drunk
drivers. In addition, the Committee has included a general
provision (sec 325) that allows $8,000,000 of the section 163
grant funds to be used for media messages on the dangers of
alcohol-impaired driving, in hopes that these messages will be
as successful as the seat belt messages procured with section
157 grant funds.
Point of sales training.--The Committee is concerned that
many alcohol enforcement programs are overlooking the
importance of proper education and training of point of sales
employees. According to the Center for Substance Abuse and
Prevention, responsible server training programs are most
likely to succeed when servers and managers know that the law
will be enforced, or realize that they have responsibility and
may assume significant liability if they serve intoxicated or
underage individuals. Point of sales education is the most
effective means for disseminating accurate information to
servers and managers. The Committee suggests that NHTSA
evaluate including point of sales training as part of its
impaired driving initiatives.
Emergency medical services head injury research.--Within
the funding provided for emergency medical services, $750,000
shall be used to continue training emergency medical service
personnel in delivering prehospital care to patients with
traumatic brain injuries.
Improving ejection prevention measures.--Occupant ejection
from motor vehicles continues to be a major safety problem.
According to NHTSA, partial and complete ejections result in
about 7,800 fatalities and 7,100 serious injuries annually. The
agency has estimated that reducing the incidence of ejection
using available safety technologies such as advanced side
glazing, side air bags, and enhanced roof strength could save
hundreds of lives. In its Vehicle Safety Rulemaking Priorities
2002-2005, which was issued July 25, 2002, NHTSA identified
both occupant ejection and upgraded roof crush resistance as
``near term'' regulatory priorities that the agency expects to
undertake in 2002 and 2003. Consistent with this proposal, the
Committee supports the adoption of measures to improve ejection
prevention performance of motor vehicles no later than December
31, 2004, and recognizes that the agency may need to develop
new test procedures.
Motorcycles.--There was a continuous decline in motorcycle
crash fatalities from the mid-1980s through 1997. Since 1997,
motorcyclist fatalities have increased. The Committee
understands that the demand for motorcycle training in the
United States exceeds current capacity and that in some states
motorcyclists must wait over six months to receive necessary
training. This is despite the fact that in 1999 there were
192,122 people trained, close to 19 percent more than in 1998.
Within the funding available to NHTSA, $500,000 shall be used
for motorcycle training demonstration projects to enable states
to develop ways to reduce their motorcycle training backlog.

Highway Traffic Safety Grants

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(Liquidation of
contract (Limitation on
authorization) obligations)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002. $223,000,000 ($223,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2003 225,000,000 (225,000,000)
Recommended in the bill......... 225,000,000 (225,000,000)
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year +2,000,000 (+2,000,000)
2002...........................
Budget request, fiscal year .................. ..................
2003...........................

TEA-21 authorized four state grant programs: the highway
safety program, the alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures
grant program, the occupant protection incentive grant program,
and the state highway safety data improvement grant program.
Three of these grant programs continued in fiscal year 2003.
The fourth--state highway safety data improvement grant
program--was only authorized through 2002; however the
Committee has provided funding under the operations and
research account to continue this work in 2003. The Committee
recommends $225,000,000 for liquidation of contract
authorization, which is less than a one percent increase above
the 2002 enacted level.

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:

Highway safety programs................................. $165,000,000
Occupant protection incentive grants.................... 20,000,000
Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures................ 40,000,000

Highway safety 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; increase safety among older and younger
drivers; and improve roadway safety. The grants also provide
additional support for state data collection and reporting of
traffic deaths and injuries.
An obligation limitation of $165,000,000 is included in the
bill, which is the same amount as requested. The national
occupant protection survey shall be funded within this total.
Also, language is included in the bill that limits funding
available for federal grants administration from this program
to $8,150,000.
Occupant protection incentive grants.--The Committee has
fully funded the occupant protection incentive grant program at
$20,000,000. States may qualify for this grant program by
implementing 4 of the following 6 laws and programs: (1) a law
requiring safety belt use in any seat in the vehicle; (2) a
safety belt use law providing for primary enforcement; (3)
minimum fines or penalty points for seat belt and child seat
use law violations; (4) special traffic enforcement programs
for occupant protection; (5) a child passenger protection
education program; and (6) a child passenger protection law
which requires minors to be properly secured. Language is
included in the bill that limits funding available for federal
grants administration from this program to $1,000,000.
In addition to the occupant protection incentive grant
program, TEA-21 established a safety incentive grant program
(section 157) to encourage states to increase seat belt usage.
The grant program totals $500,000,000 over six years.
Allocations of federal grants require determinations of (1)
seat belt use rates and improvements and (2) federal medical
cost savings attributable to increased seat belt use. States
that meet the section 157 requirements can use funds for any
purpose under title 23, including highway construction, highway
safety, and intelligent transportation systems. NHTSA and FHWA
are jointly administering this program. NHTSA will collect the
state data and determine the allocation of funds.
Alcohol-impaired driving incentive grants.--These grants
will offer two-tiered basic and supplemental grants to reward
states that pass new laws and start more effective programs to
attack drunk and impaired driving. States may qualify for basic
grants in two ways. First, they can implement 5 of the
following 7 laws and programs: (1) administrative license
revocation; (2) programs to prevent drivers under age 21 from
obtaining alcoholic beverages; (3) intensive impaired driving
law enforcement; (4) graduated licensing law with nighttime
driving restrictions and zero tolerance; (5) drivers with high
blood alcohol content (BAC); (6) young adult programs to reduce
impaired driving by individuals ages 21-34; (7) a rate of
testing for BAC of drivers in fatal crashes that is above the
national average. Second, they can demonstrate a reduction in
alcohol involved fatality rates in each of the last three years
for which Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) data is
available and demonstrate rates lower than the national average
for each of the last three years. Supplemental grants are
provided to states that adopt additional measures, including
videotaping of drunk drivers by police; self-sustaining
impaired driving programs; laws to reduce driving with
suspended licenses; use of passive alcohol sensors by police; a
system for tracking information on drunk drivers; and other
innovative programs. The Committee has provided $40,000,000 for
these grants in fiscal year 2003. Language is included in the
bill that limits funding available for federal grants
administration from this program to $2,000,000.
In addition to the alcohol-impaired driving incentive grant
program, TEA-21 authorized $500,000,000 in grants over six
years for states that have enacted and are enforcing a 0.08 BAC
law (section 163). For each fiscal year a state meets this
criterion, it will receive a grant in the same ratio in which
it receives section 402 funds. The states may use these funds
for any project eligible for assistance under title 23 (e.g.
highway construction, bridge repair, highway safety, etc.).
This grant program encourages states to adopt and enforce more
strigent anti-drunk driving legislation.
Bill language.--The bill contains two provisions that
pertain to NHTSA's highway safety grant programs. First,
language is continued 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. Second, language is continued that
limits the amount available for technical assistance to
$500,000 of funds provided to implement section 410.
General provision.--The Committee continued a general
provision (sec. 325), that was included for the first time in
fiscal year 2001, which allows section 402 funds to be used to
produce and place highway safety public service messages in
television, radio, cinema, print media, and on the internet. In
addition the provision was modified to allow up to $8,000,000
of the funds provided for innovative seat belt programs
(section 157 grants) and alcohol-impaired driving programs
(section 163 grants) to be used by the States to purchase
advertising to publicize seat belt enforcement efforts and on
ways to reduce alcohol-related fatalities during one or more of
the national mobilization campaigns. The language also provides
up to $2,000,000 for the Administrator to evaluate the
effectiveness of the States' seat belt and alcohol programs
that purchased such advertising.

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

Summary of Fiscal Year 2003 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 2003 is $937,614,000, which is $285,349,000 (43 percent)
more than requested. The following table summarizes the fiscal
year 2002 program levels, the fiscal year 2003 program requests
and the Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 Fiscal year 2003 Recommended in
Program enacted level request the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety and operations.................................. \1\ $116,857,000 \3\ $118,264,000 $117,363,000
Safety and operations user fees........................ ................. -45,000,000 .................
Railroad research and development...................... 29,000,000 28,325,000 27,325,000
Railroad research and development user fees............ ................. -14,000,000 .................
Next generation high speed rail........................ 32,300,000 23,200,000 30,450,000
Alaska railroad........................................ 20,000,000 ................. .................
Grants to National Railroad Passenger Corporation...... \2\ 826,476,000 \1\ 521,476,000 762,476,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................ 1,044,632,000 652,265,000 937,614,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $6,000,000 in supplemental emergency appropriations (P.L. 107-117).
\2\ Includes $100,000,000 in supplemental emergency appropriations (P.L 107-117) and $205,000,000 in
supplemental appropriations (P.L. 107-206).
\3\ Excludes $4,625,000 in CSRS/FEHB accruals.

Safety and Operations

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 \1\................. $116,857,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003 \2\................ 118,264,000
Recommended in the bill............................. 117,363,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002................. +506,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003................ -901,000
\1\ Includes $6,000,000 in supplemental emergency appropriations (P.L.
107-117).
\2\ Excludes $3,625,000 in CSRS/FEHB accruals.

The safety and operations account provides support for
FRA's rail safety and passenger and freight program activities.
Funding also supports salaries and expenses and other operating
costs related to FRA staff and programs.
A total of $117,363,000 has been allocated to safety and
operations, which is 6 percent above the 2002 enacted level,
when the $6,000,000 supplemental emergency appropriation is
excluded. Of this total, $6,636,000 is available until
expended. The following adjustments were made to the budget
request:

Deny six new staff positions........................ -$836,000
Deny FECA administrative costs...................... -65,000

New staff.--The Committee has denied six of the ten new
staff requested in fiscal year 2003. Last year, the Committee
approved 26 new staff and an additional 4 staff in the
emergency supplemental. To date, FRA has filled half (15) of
these positions. Because of the length of time it has taken FRA
to fill its 2002 positions, the Committee has deferred a
substantial increase in new staff in 2003 until it is clearer
that the previously approved and on board staff cannot fulfill
some or all of the functions requested in 2003.
FECA administrative costs.--The Committee has denied
funding for FECA administrative costs included in the budget
(-$65,000). This policy is consistent across all modal
administrations funded in this bill.
User fees.--The Committee has denied the administration's
request to collect $45,000,000 in user fees for railroad safety
activities. This request has not been authorized. Until such
authorization occurs, the Committee will continue to fund
railroad safety activities in the traditional manner.
Pierre, South Dakota.--To accommodate the anticipated rail
traffic from the Powder River Basin through Pierre and Fort
Pierre, SD, the Committee directs the Administrator to work
with the State of South Dakota, the cities of Pierre and Fort
Pierre, and other entities to facilitate the construction of a
project that will reduce rail congestion, mitigate noise, and
increase safety. The mitigation projects may include, but are
not limited to, a rail bypass around Pierre and Fort Pierre,
including a Missouri River crossing, or noise and grade
crossing mitigation and other safety measures associated with
the existing track.
General provision.--The bill includes language pertaining
to the use of previously appropriated local rail freight
assistance funds in the State of Iowa.

Railroad Research and Development

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002..................... $29,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003.................... 28,325,000
Recommended in the bill............................. 27,325,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002................. -1,675,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003................ -1,000,000

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 $27,325,000,
which is $1,000,000 less than requested. The following
adjustments were made to the budget request:

Train control....................................... $750,000
Transportation Technology Center.................... -250,000

Train control.--The Committee has reduced funding for
testing and evaluation of train control systems under this
account (-$750,000). Under the next generation high-speed rail
account, the Committee has provided $9,000,000 for train
control projects and evaluations. It is unclear how this
research funding differs from work being done by FRA under the
next generation high-speed rail account.
Transportation Technology Center (TTC).--The Committee has
provided a total of $675,000 for site improvements at the
Transportation Technology Center. While this is only half of
the increase requested (+$250,000), it should provide ample
resources for the refurbishment and replacement of facilities
and equipment at the Center in Pueblo, Colorado.
University of Nebraska and Marshall University projects.--
The Committee continues to support the track and structures
research being conducted at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln
and Marshall University. A total of $500,000 has been provided
for these efforts in fiscal year 2003.
User fees.--The Committee has denied the administration's
request to collect $14,000,000 in user fees for railroad
research and development activities. This request has not been
authorized. Until such authorization occurs, the Committee will
continue to fund railroad research and development activities
in the traditional manner.

Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Program

TEA-21 establishes a railroad rehabilitation and
improvement financing loan and loan guarantee program. The
aggregate unpaid principal amounts of the obligations may not
exceed $3.5 billion at any one time. Not less than $1 billion
is reserved for projects primarily benefiting freight railroads
other than class I carriers. The funding may be used: (1) to
acquire, improve, or rehabilitate intermodal or rail equipment
or facilities, including track, components of track, bridges,
yards, buildings, or shops; (2) to refinance existing debt; or
(3) to develop and establish new intermodal or railroad
facilities. No federal appropriation is required since a non-
federal infrastructure partner may contribute the subsidy
amount required by the Credit Reform Act of 1990 in the form of
a credit risk premium. Once received, statutorily established
investigation charges are immediately available for appraisals
and necessary determinations and findings.
The Committee has included bill language specifying that no
new direct loans or loan guarantee commitments may be made
using federal funds for the payment of any credit premium
amount during fiscal year 2003, as requested.

Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Corporation

Funds are being used to redevelop Pennsylvania Station in
New York City, which involves renovating the James A. Farley
Post Office building into a train station and commercial
center, and basic upgrades to Pennsylvania Station. In fiscal
year 2000, Public Law 106-113 provided an advance appropriation
totaling $60,000,000 of which $20,000,000 was allocated to
fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003. The Committee has provided
the advanced appropriation, which fulfills the federal
commitment to this project.
The Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Corporation has had
significant problems with the proposed renovation of the James
A. Farley Post Office building so that it can be used as a
transportation facility and alleviate congestion at the
adjacent Pennsylvania Station. However, after much effort, it
appears that this project may finally get off the drawing
board. Currently, the Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment
Corporation and the United States Post Office are negotiating
an agreement through which the State of New York would purchase
a portion of the James A. Farley Post Office building, which
will then be converted largely into Amtrak-based facilities. It
is the Committee's understanding that the U.S. Postal Service
will retain ownership of that portion of the building which
they are using and the State of New York will own the remainder
of the building. The current cost estimate for this project is
approximately $815,000,000. With this appropriation and a
$160,000,000 Transportation Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Act loan and line of credit, the federal commitment
is complete. The State of New York, Metropolitan Transportation
Authority, New York City Economic Development Corporation, New
York State Urban Development Corporation, U.S. Postal Service
and private equity will provide the remainder of the funding
for this project.

Next Generation High-Speed Rail Program

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002..................... $32,300,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003.................... 23,200,000
Recommended in the bill............................. 30,450,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002................. -1,550,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003................ +7,250,000

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 TEA-21.
The Committee recommends $30,450,000 for the next
generation high-speed rail program, which is $7,250,000 more
than the budget request. Total program funding is allocated as
follows:

Committee
recommendation
Train control systems:
North American joint PTC project.................... $8,000,000
Train control at the Transportation Technology
Center............................................ 1,000,000
Non-electric locomotives:
Advanced locomotive propulsion system............... 3,500,000
Prototype non-electric locomotive................... 2,000,000
Diesel mutiple units compliance and demonstration... 8,000,000
Grade crossing and innovative technologies:
Mitigating hazards.................................. 2,250,000
Low-cost technologies............................... 1,000,000
Track and structures.................................... 1,000,000
Corridor planning:
California corridor................................. 1,000,000
Gulf Coast corridor................................. 600,000
Southeast corridor.................................. 100,000
Florida corridor.................................... 2,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 30,450,000

Diesel multiple units (DMU) compliance and demonstration
program.--There is a growing interest from both commuter and
intercity rail passenger service providers to use diesel
multiple units on commuter and future high-speed rail
corridors. However, this form of rail technology has not been
produced in the United States since the Federal Railroad
Administration has issued passenger equipment safety
regulations. The Committee has provided $8,000,000 to validate
the compliance of diesel multiple units with existing passenger
car safety standards and to make a grant to a public body for
the purpose of initiating a demonstration in daily revenue
service of a compliant DMU during calendar year 2003. Federal
funding shall only be made available if funds are matched on a
dollar-for-dollar basis from non-federal sources and shall only
be used for activities related to establishing the compliance
of the DMU design with passenger car safety standards and for
the acquisition of DMUs and service facilities necessary for
revenue service demonstration. All other expenses, including
the cost of passenger facilities and any net operating
expenses, are not eligible for funding under this
appropriation.
California high-speed corridor.--In making funds available
to the California High-Speed Rail Authority, the Committee
expects FRA to ensure that the State of California maintains
its level of effort in allocating state funds to support high-
speed rail development and does not use federal funds as a
substitute for state funding.
Rail-highway crossing hazard eliminations.--Under section
1003 of TEA-21, an automatic set-aside of $5,250,000 a year is
made available for the elimination of rail-highway crossing
hazards. A limited number of corridors are eligible for these
funds. Of these funds, $2,000,000 shall be used to mitigate
grade crossing hazards between Mobile, Alabama and New Orleans,
Louisiana; $1,400,000 shall be used to mitigate grade crossing
hazards on the Empire Corridor between New York City and
Albany, New York (including Hamilton Printing and Hook Boat);
$1,000,000 to mitigate grade crossing hazards along the high-
speed rail corridor in South Carolina; $250,000 to mitigate
grade crossing hazards between Staples Mill Station and Main
Street Station in Richmond, Virginia; $350,000 to mitigate
grade crossing hazards between Chicago, Illinois and St. Louis,
Missouri; and $250,000 shall be used on the high-speed rail
corridor between Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota and Chicago,
Illinois.

Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation

(AMTRAK)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 \1\................... $826,476,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003...................... 521,476,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 762,476,000
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002................... -64,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003.................. +241,000,000
\1\ Includes $100,000,000 in supplemental emergency appropriations (P.L.
107-117) and $205,000,000 in supplemental appropriations (P.L. 107-
206).

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.

Status of Amtrak

Amtrak's financial situation has been especially precarious
over the past year. While the railroad saw increased ridership,
particularly on the Northeast Corridor, following the tragic
events of September 11, 2001, its financial condition
deteriorated so dramatically that the railroad began plans to
cease all operations in early July of 2002. Serious structural
reforms must occur during fiscal year 2003 if the railroad is
to remain a viable entity instead of one that lurches from
crisis to crisis.
In 1997, with the passage of the Amtrak Reform and
Accountability Act, Amtrak was required to reach operating
self-sufficiency by the end of 2002. Year after year, Amtrak
repeatedly told the Committee that it was fixated on meeting
this mandate, even as others expressed serious reservations
about Amtrak's ability to meet or sustain operating self-
sufficiency. On November 9, 2001, the Amtrak Reform Council
rendered a decision that Amtrak could not achieve operational
self-sufficiency by its statutory deadline of December 2, 2002.
The council found that Amtrak's financial performance since
enactment of the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act had
deteriorated to such as degree that the railroad was in a
weaker financial condition at the end of 2001 than it was prior
to enactment in 1997.
On January 25, 2002, the Inspector General reached a
similar conclusion in its report on Amtrak's fiscal year 2001
performance. In that report, the Inspector General stated,
``Amtrak's cash losses have not decreased and Amtrak is no
closer to operating self-sufficiency now than it was in 1997.
With less than a year remaining in its mandate, there is not
sufficient time for Amtrak to implement the kinds of
sustainable improvements necessary to meet its deadlines for
self-sufficiency. At this point in time, Amtrak will face a
formidable challenge in 2002 just managing its cash resources--
be they from operating revenues or federal subsidies--to make
ends meet without further borrowing.'' The Inspector General's
concern was right on target.
In early February 2002, the President of Amtrak announced
$285,000,000 in operating cuts, capital deferrals, and
maintenance actions to provide the railroad enough money to get
through this fiscal year. Yet, even these cuts were
insufficient.
In May 2002, it became apparent to the new President of the
Corporation that Amtrak had enough money to only last through
mid-July. After that, the railroad would need to borrow money
to make payroll through the end of the fiscal year. While
Amtrak has done this before, the ability to borrow money in
fiscal year 2002 had become much more complicated. Amtrak did
not have a clean audit report from 2001, and still remains
without an audit report of any type to this day. The Committee
understands, however that the auditors had expressed serious
concerns about Amtrak's financial situation. During their
audit, they found approximately $200,000,000 in financial
misstatements. Without an audit report, banks were reluctant to
loan Amtrak short-term cash for operating expenses. At the end
of June, the Secretary of Transportation stepped in and
provided Amtrak a direct loan for $100,000,000 to keep the
railroad operating past mid-July. At the end of July, Congress
appropriated an additional $205,000,000 in supplemental
appropriations to keep the railroad operating through the end
of fiscal year 2002.
Amtrak's shaky financial situation has had a direct impact
on its revenues and riders. Amtrak's year-to-date operating
results are $65,000,000 worse than they anticipated. In June
2002 (when Amtrak was reporting the possible cessation of
service), passenger revenues dropped by $13,300,000 and the
railroad experienced a large number of cancellations. Revenues
have been further impacted by a growing number of service
quality issues, including an increase in the number of track
slow orders, cancellations of service, and equipment problems,
most notably the cancellation of Acela high-speed rail service
due to cracking in the locomotives and railcars in August. A
spate of accidents and derailments has led to a record number
of railcars being placed out of service. As of June, over 100
railcars and locomotives need to be repaired. This number has
built up over time, as the railroad has had insufficient
resources to repair them.

Budget Requests

The Committee has received two very different budget
requests for Amtrak. The Administration has recommended an
appropriation of $521,476,000 and has stated that this amount
is a placeholder until Congress decides how Amtrak should be
structured. The Administration's budget request notes that
``Amtrak has utterly failed'' to graduate from federal
financial support and that Amtrak cannot continue indefinitely
under current circumstances. In comparison, Amtrak has asked
for more than double this amount--requesting a total of
$1,200,000,000 in fiscal year 2003. This request does not allow
for any new growth in service, it merely sustains their current
deteriorated level of service. Amtrak also noted that if the
railroad did not receive this entire appropriation, it would
stop all long-distance service, 18 trains in all, on October 1,
2002.
Since receiving these budget requests, numerous events have
occurred that alter, to some degree, the requests before this
Committee. First, in June 2002, the Department developed a
white paper that outlined a broad restructuring of Amtrak. This
proposal put details behind the broad assertions contained in
the budget request. In general, the paper rejected the
assertion that Amtrak's problems can be fixed simply by a
massive infusion of federal dollars. Instead, the
Administration recommended systematic, root-and-branch
rethinking of Amtrak's structure and its public policy mandate.
The Department suggested reforms that would: require Amtrak to
transition to a pure operating company; introduce competition
to provide higher quality rail service at a reasonable price;
establish long-term partnerships between states and the Federal
Government to support intercity rail; and create a public
partnership to manage the capital assets of the Northeast
Corridor. While Amtrak has rejected many of these notions
outright, the railroad has not developed a separate proposal
for consideration. Second, in the summer, Amtrak informally
told the Committee that it may require more funding for
operating expenses than originally anticipated in their grant
request in part due to a perceived inability to access up to
$300,000,000 in private loans and $3.7 billion in debt.

Committee Recommendation

The Committee recommends $762,476,000 for grants to Amtrak
in fiscal year 2003, which is $241,000,000 more than the budget
request. Of this total, $521,476,000 is for operating losses
and mandatory payments and $241,000,000 is for general capital
improvements. Funding is provided to the Secretary of
Transportation, who shall allocate these funds to Amtrak
quarterly through the grant making process.
The Secretary is directed to assure that any funds provided
to Amtrak be spent in a prudent manner, on projects where
positive results can be seen. Funding should be spent on
projects that maximize operational efficiencies and promote
those lines that have the highest ridership and have cost
sharing agreements in place. Amtrak shall not be permitted to
begin any new projects unless it can be fully funded with the
fiscal year 2003 appropriation and Amtrak generated revenues
unless such projects are critical for safety or infrastructure
repairs.
Capital and operating work plan.--Bill language is included
that requires Amtrak to submit to the Secretary of
Transportation and the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations an operating and capital work plan for projects
and expenses to be funded in fiscal year 2003. This work plan
should not exceed funding provided in the final Appropriations
bill for fiscal year 2003. The work plan must be approved by
Amtrak's Board of Directors and submitted no later than (1) 60
days of enactment of the final Department of Transportation and
Related Agencies Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003 or
(2) before Amtrak submits its 2004 grant request to Congress on
February 15, 2003, whichever comes first. The capital and
operating work plan shall include a description of the work to
be funded, along with cost estimates and an estimated timetable
for completion of the projects covered by this work plan. The
Committee includes specific language directing the Secretary of
Transportation that no funding may be used for operating and
capital expenses not included on the approved work plan,
excluding those payments made at the beginning of the fiscal
year. Development and approval of the operating and capital
plan should minimize the number of stopgap measures Amtrak has
had to employ during the last few years, particularly relating
to capital projects when the Corporation has been unable to
commit funding to complete an entire project.
Additional bill language is included that requires Amtrak
to provide supplemental quarterly reports on the status of work
included in the plan, including work completed to date, any
changes to the work plan and reasons for such changes. The
Committee directs that the work plan should be amended
appropriately if changes to it occur during the fiscal year.
In addition to the submission of an operating and capital
plan for fiscal year 2003, the Secretary must vouch for the
accuracy of Amtrak's financial information. This must be in the
form of a signed letter that would accompany the operating and
capital plans. In doing so, the Secretary must certify in
writing, that based on his knowledge, the financial statements
and other financial information prepared by Amtrak for Congress
(e.g. capital and operating plans, business plans that are
attached to their yearly grant requests, etc.) fairly present
in all material respects the financial condition of the
Corporation. Specifically:
1. Amtrak's financial information and reports are prepared
using generally accepted accounting standards.
2. Amtrak has corrected any material weaknesses or
inaccuracies identified by a publicly registered accounting
firm according to generally accepted accounting principles.
3. Amtrak has disclosed to the Secretary any and all
material off-balance sheet transactions, arrangements, and
obligations that may have a current or future material effect
on the Corporation's financial condition, changes in financial
condition, results in operations, liquidity, capital
expenditures, capital resources, or any significant components
of revenues or expenses.
4. Amtrak has designed internal controls to ensure that
material information is made known to the Board of Directors
and the Secretary of Transportation in a timely fashion.
5. The Secretary has evaluated the effectiveness of
Amtrak's internal controls to assure that deficiencies are not
occurring and, if so, all significant deficiencies in the
design or operation of internal controls that could adversely
affect the Corporation's ability to record, process, summarize,
or report financial data and identify fraud, have been
corrected prior to certification.
6. Finally, Amtrak should ensure that all of its financial
information does not contain untrue statements of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order for
the Board of Directors and the Secretary of Transportation to
make informed financial decisions.
The Secretary of Transportation and the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations must approve any variations to the
base operating and capital plans. Variations must be submitted
through the reprogramming process.
Reprogrammings.--During the start up phase in the 1970s and
early 1980s, Amtrak was subject to reprogramming guidelines.
Given their current financial status, the Committee finds it
necessary to exert greater management controls by reinstituting
the reprogramming process. While the Committee generally
accepts the view that rigid adherence to the amounts justified
in a grant request or capital plan may unduly jeopardize the
effective accomplishment of planned programs in the most
economical way, the Committee believes that it must be notified
of any significant changes. For example, unforeseen
requirements or changes in operating conditions may require
some changes in funds from the specific purposes for which they
were initially justified. Reprogrammings (defined as changes in
the application of grant monies appropriated differently than
initially justified to Congress, as amended by final action by
Congress) must be developed by the Corporation in consultation
with the Department of Transportation and the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations. This will provide the basis for
appropriate oversight of the utilization by the Corporation of
grant appropriations while providing flexibility in the
execution of the railroad's programs.
Specifically, Amtrak must provide timely information to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations and to the
Secretary of Transportation on the Corporation's entire
spending plan. To do so, Amtrak must issue an operating and
capital plan, or a ``base'' report, following final
Congressional appropriation action on the Corporation's grant
request. This report should show, by budget category, the base
reflecting Congressional action with annotations to include any
specific Congressional direction or guidance on the use of
capital grant monies for specific purposes. The report should
be promptly transmitted to the Department of Transportation and
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
Approval by the Subcommittee Chairman of the House and
Senate Committee on Appropriations is a prerequisite before any
reprogramming action can be implemented. The following
information must be provided by Amtrak, if relevant, to permit
review of the reprogramming request:
1. A description of why the reprogramming is necessary and
what may occur without it.
2. A table or worksheet showing an increase in monies for
budget categories, activities or items and similarly one
showing where specific reductions are proposed.
3. Any proposed increase in monies for budget categories,
activities, or items for which specific reductions were made by
the Congress below amounts requested in the budget.
4. Any proposed change to an action that, by its nature, is
known to be or has been designated as a matter of special
interest to either of the Committees.
5. An increase by ten percent or more in monies previously
approved for a budget category, except that increases of less
than $1,000,000 to a category will not be subject to prior
approval.
6. An addition of a new budget category.
7. Other reprogramming actions which individually do not
require prior Congressional approval but that, when considered
cumulatively with previous unreported actions, would equal or
exceed the ten percent and $1,000,000 thresholds for a budget
category for the applicable fiscal year.
These proposed reprogramming shall be submitted to the
Department of Transportation and the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations promptly. Reprogramming actions
will not be implemented if either of the Committees offers an
objection to the proposed reprogramming. In the event that the
Corporation has not been informed of approval or disapproval,
or has not otherwise requested to defer action, within 30
calendar days of receipt by the Committees, it will be assumed
by the Corporation that there is no objection and the
reprogramming action can be implemented. However, in the case
where the Department of Transportation has, within this 30-day
period, notified the Corporation and the Committees in writing
of its non-concurrence, the proposed reprogramming will not be
implemented without the affirmative approval of both
Committees.
Direct loan provisions.--Bill language is also included
that requires Amtrak to continue to abide by some provisions of
the direct loan agreement signed on June 28, 2002, which would
otherwise expire. These include:
(1) Amtrak management will significantly improve financial
controls and accounting transparency, including developing or
enhancing any existing capacity separately. Management must
report to the Board of Directors, the Department of
Transportation (DOT), and the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations monthly on: (a) all revenues and expenses
associated with rail operations by route, and (b) budgeted and
actual expenditures for all capital investments.
(2) Amtrak management will provide to the Board of
Directors, the Department of Transportation, and Congress
monthly performance reports. Amtrak shall also make available
to DOT the same details and reports on its financial
performance that it makes available to Amtrak management, at
the same that it provides those reports and details to Amtrak
management.
(3) Amtrak funds will be spent only on existing plant and
services. With the exception of expenditures for which it
obtains written approval from DOT, Amtrak will suspend use of
any of its funds for actual expansion or planning for expansion
of rail service, including high speed rail service through
fiscal year 2003.
(4) Amtrak will provide DOT core operating data so that the
Department can monitor and evaluate the railroad's ability to
manage its cash flow, within the current appropriations level
and using conservative revenue assumptions.
An additional requirement of the direct loan provision was
$100,000,000 in cost savings. The Committee directs Amtrak to
continue this provision and find $100,000,000 in cost savings
annually. Amtrak management should formulate a prioritized list
of expense reduction options for implementation beginning in
fiscal year 2003. These expense reduction options should
identify at least $100,000,000 of potential reductions on an
annualized basis. In concert with the provision, Amtrak must
seek the cooperation of all of its employees in achieving
substantial operating cost reductions.
Short distance trains.--The Committee is aware that Amtrak
does not uniformly charge states for operations on their short
distance or corridor trains outside of the Northeast Corridor.
Amtrak shall establish a more uniform methodology for cost
sharing on these routes. To do so, Amtrak shall analyze current
state funding for operating expenses and capital improvements,
and review the contractual terms under which this funding is
provided, and consult with states served by these routes to
establish new cost sharing procedures and increase state
support on these routes. Amtrak shall report to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations on the status of these
efforts by April 1, 2003.
Long distance operations.--Amtrak trains have rarely
operated at a profit. In 2001, only two Amtrak routes were
profitable--the Metroliner/Acela Express and the Heartland
Flyer, which is a heavily state supported train operating
between Oklahoma City and Dallas/Fort Worth. Every other train
(39 of 41) operates at a loss. The per rider losses range from
$4.11 for the Capitols (Colfax-Sacramento-San Jose, CA) to
$347.45 for the Sunset Limited (Los Angeles, CA to Orlando,
FL). Nationally, the loss per rider is $33.09; however, the
average per rider loss escalates to $138.71 for long distance
trains. In other words, for Amtrak to break even financially,
American taxpayers would be required to subsidize each Amtrak
rider's trip an average of $33.09, and each long distance
rider's trip $138.71.
Over the past five years, the number of long distance
trains that operate at a substantial loss has grown
dramatically. In 1997, the General Accounting Office reported
that only two routes--the Texas Eagle and the Sunset Limited--
lost over $200 per passenger. By comparison, in fiscal year
2001, six routes--the Three Rivers, the Southwest Chief, the
Texas Eagle, the Sunset Limited, the Kentucky Cardinal, and the
Pennsylvanian--incurred a loss of more than $200 per passenger.
This growth in per passenger loss is particularly startling
because, during this same time period, Congress required Amtrak
to become operationally self-sufficient, and in trying to meet
this mandate, Amtrak negotiated new or increased support
payments from some states to improve the financial performance
of various routes. For example, between 1998 and 2002, state
operating support increased from $83,000,000 to $126,000,000.
California has been a leader in this front. In 2002, California
will provide about $65,000,000 for operating support of Amtrak
services and has contributed funding for specific capital
improvements.
It is clear that increased state support could improve
Amtrak's finances. It is equally clear that Congress cannot
provide huge increases in subsidies for Amtrak without some
cost-sharing by those receiving the value of those services.
The Committee is aware that Amtrak is in the process of
refining its route contribution analysis to better identify how
each train performs and what percentage of its costs are
covered by revenues so that Amtrak can renegotiate state
contracts for additional support. The Committee has included
bill language that limits the amount of assistance available to
operate long distance trains to $150,000,000 in fiscal year
2003. Any amount above that level will require Amtrak to make
up the difference, through operating efficiencies, increased
revenues from new riders, and/or contributions from states,
localities, or non-Federal entities that benefit from these
long distance trains. The Committee believes that Amtrak is in
the best position to make route decisions and to determine
which, if any, routes may be impacted by this cap on operating
assistance. However, through a combination of increased
revenues, perhaps based on new riders, and contributions from
non-federal sources, Amtrak may be able to continue every long
distance train, but at lower federal subsidy.
As Amtrak begins to reduce the cost of operations of its
long distance trains, the Committee directs Amtrak to report on
measures it undertakes after the start of fiscal year 2003 to
reduce the financial burden of such trains on the federal
treasury. Specific estimates of cost savings to be achieved
shall be provided in both fiscal year 2003 and for a five-year
period. Further, the report shall highlight any impacts these
measures may have on Amtrak's mail and express services. This
report is due to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations no later than April 1, 2003.
Cessation in commuter services.--A general provision is
included that would authorize directed rail service along
commuter lines after a service cessation by the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation. Under this language, states and
mass transit authorities can petition the STB if there is a
substantial threat of cessation of service by a passenger
contractor. The STB may, as necessary, also permit commuter
railroads to override contracts with Amtrak and government
grant agreements to assure a continuation of service.

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

Summary of Fiscal Year 2003 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 Transportation
Administration until enactment of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, the Federal Transit
Administration administers 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 annual limitations on obligations provided in
appropriations Acts. However, direct appropriations are
required for portions of all accounts.
The current authorization for the programs funded by the
Federal Transit Administration is contained in the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). TEA-21
also amended the Budget Enforcement Act to provide two
additional discretionary spending categories, the highway
category and the mass transit category. The mass transit
category is comprised of transit formula grants, transit
capital funding, Federal Transit Administration administrative
expenses, transit planning and research and university
transportation center funding. The mass transit category
obligations are capped at $7,226,000,000 and outlays are capped
at $5,781,000,000 in fiscal year 2003. Any additional
appropriated funding above the levels specified as guaranteed
for each transit program in TEA-21 (that which could be
appropriated from general funds authorized under section
5338(h)) is scored against the non-defense discretionary
category.
The total funding provided for FTA for fiscal year 2003 is
$7,226,000,000, including $1,445,000,000 in direct
appropriations and $5,781,000,000 in limitations on contract
authority. The total recommended is $383,200,000 (5.6 percent)
over the fiscal year 2002 enacted level when supplemental
appropriations are excluded. The following table summarizes the
fiscal year 2002 program levels, the fiscal year 2003 budget
request, and the fiscal year 2003 recommended levels:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 Fiscal year 2003 Recommended in
Program enacted request the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses................................ $67,000,000 \4\ $73,000,000 $73,000,000
Formula grants \1\^, \2\................................ 3,615,500,000 3,839,000,000 3,839,000,000
University transportation research..................... 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000
Transit planning and research.......................... 116,000,000 122,000,000 122,000,000
Capital investment grants \2\^, \3\..................... 4,741,000,000 3,036,000,000 3,036,000,000
Job access and reverse commute grants.................. 125,000,000 150,000,000 150,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................ 8,670,500,000 7,226,000,000 7,226,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $23,500,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations (P.L. 107-117).
\2\ Does not reflect transfer of $50,000,000 from formula grants to capital investment grants.
\3\ Includes a total of $1,900,000,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations exclusively for the
rehabilitation and enhancements of transit systems in the Borough of Manhattan, New York City, New York
following September 11, 2001 (P.L. 107-117 and P.L. 107-206).
\4\ Excludes $3,586,000 in CSRS/FEHB accruals.

Administrative Expenses

Limitation on
Appropriation obligations (Trust
(General fund) fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002. $13,400,000 ($53,600,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2003 14,600,000 (58,400,000)
\1\............................
Recommended in the bill......... 14,600,000 (58,400,000)
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year +1,200,000 (+4,800,000)
2002...........................
Budget request, fiscal year .................. ..................
2003...........................
\1\ Excludes $3,586,000 in CSRS/FEHB accruals.

The bill provides a total appropriation of $73,000,000 for
FTA's salaries and expenses. The recommendation is $6,000,000
above the fiscal year 2002 enacted level. This appropriation is
guaranteed under the transit funding category. The
recommendation of $73,000,000 is comprised of an appropriation
of $14,600,000 from the general fund and $58,400,000 from
limitations on obligations from the mass transit account of the
highway trust fund.
Full-time equivalent (FTE) staff years.--The Committee has
approved the 12 new positions requested to implement statutory
requirements for over 160 new starts projects, to improve the
oversight of transit grants and contracts, and to meet FTA's
statutory and administrative requirements. While a total of
$1,098,000 was requested for the 12 positions, funding has been
reduced by half (-$549,000). This reduction reflects half year
funding for these new positions instead of full year funding,
which is consistent with last year's hiring practices in FTA
and general budget guidance and practices. Also, the Committee
continues to be concerned about FTA's high attrition rate (9
percent in 2001). Because of this rate, it is likely that it
will take FTA a substantial amount of time to fill these new
positions, especially considering the high level of current
vacancies.
FECA administrative costs.--The Committee has denied
funding included in the budget request for FECA administrative
costs (-$15,000). This is consistent across all modal
administrations funded in this bill and is explained in an
earlier section of this report.
Project management oversight activities.--The Committee
recommends that FTA increase funding available for project
management oversight activities by $564,000. According to FTA,
funding for oversight is expected to decrease from $52,500,000
in 2002 to $48,305,000 in 2003. This decrease is attributable
to FTA no longer having carryover to finance these activities.
It is critical that FTA continue to support strong project and
financial oversight activities, particularly as more
communities are interested in applying for funding under newer
statutory programs; are developing or expanding rail systems;
and more will become interested in the program as urbanized
areas grow.
To further support oversight activities, the Committee
includes bill language that requires FTA to reimburse the
Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General for
$2,000,000 in costs associated with audits and investigations
of transit related issues, including reviews of new fixed
guideway systems. This reimbursement must come from funds
available for the execution of contracts. Over the past several
years, the IG has provided critical oversight of several major
transit projects, which the Committee has found invaluable. The
Committee anticipates that the Inspector General will continue
such oversight activities in fiscal year 2003.
Full funding grant agreements (FFGAs).--TEA-21, as amended,
requires that FTA notify the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations as well as the House Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Banking 60 days
before executing a full funding grant agreement. In its
notification to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations, FTA is directed to include therein the
following: (1) a copy of the proposed full funding grant
agreement; (2) the total and annual federal appropriations
required for that project; (3) yearly and total federal
appropriations that can be reasonably planned or anticipated
for future FFGAs for each fiscal year through 2003; (4) a
detailed analysis of annual commitments for current and
anticipated FFGAs against the program authorization; and (5) a
financial analysis of the project's cost and sponsor's ability
to finance, which shall be conducted by an independent examiner
and which shall include an assessment of the capital cost
estimate and the finance plan; the source and security of all
public- and private-sector financial instruments, the project's
operating plan which enumerates the project's future revenue
and ridership forecasts, and planned contingencies and risks
associated with the project.
Also FTA is directed to inform the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations before approving scope changes in
any full funding grant agreement. Correspondence relating to
scope changes shall include any budget revisions or program
changes that materially alter the project as originally
stipulated in the full funding grant agreement, and shall
include any proposed change in rail car procurements.
Bill language.--New bill language is included pertaining to
the timely submission of the annual new starts report. A
detailed discussion explaining why this language is necessary
can be found under ``new starts, capital investment grants''.

Formula Grants

Limitation on
Appropriation obligations (Trust
(General fund) fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 $741,900,000 ($2,873,600,000)
\1\^, \2\.......................
Budget request, fiscal year 2003 767,800,000 (3,071,200,000)
\2\............................
Recommended in the bill......... 767,800,000 (3,071,200,000)
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year +25,900,000 (+197,600,000)
2002...........................
Budget request, fiscal year .................. ..................
2003...........................
\1\ Includes $23,500,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations (P.L.
107-117).
\2\ Does not reflect transfer of $2,000,000 to the Office of Inspector
General and $50,000,000 to capital investment grants.

The accompanying bill provides a total of $3,839,000,000
for transit formula grants. This level is $247,000,000 above
the 2002 enacted level when the supplemental appropriation is
excluded and is guaranteed under the transit category.
The recommended program level of $3,839,000,000 is
comprised of an appropriation of $767,800,000 from the general
fund and $3,071,200,000 from limitations on obligations from
the mass transit account of the highway trust fund. Formula
grants to states and local agencies funded under this heading
fall into four categories: urbanized area formula grants
(U.S.C. sec. 5307); clean fuels formula grants (U.S.C. sec.
5308); formula grants and loans for special needs of elderly
individuals and individuals with disabilities (U.S.C. sec.
5310); and formula grants for other than urbanized areas
(U.S.C. sec. 5311). In addition, set asides of formula funds
are directed to a grant program for intercity bus operators to
finance Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility
costs and the Alaska Railroad for improvements to its passenger
operations.
Within the total funding level of $3,839,000,000, the
Committee's recommendation includes the following distribution:

Urbanized areas (U.S.C. 5307)....................... $3,428,709,908
Oversight........................................... 18,432,736
Clean fuels (sec. 5308)............................. 50,000,000
Elderly and disabled (sec. 5310).................... 90,652,801
Non-urbanized areas (sec. 5311)..................... 239,404,605
Over-the-road bus accessibility program............. 6,950,000
Alaska railroad \1\................................. 4,850,000
\1\ Includes $24,300 for oversight activities.

Operating costs.--Section 3007 of TEA-21 amends U.S.C.
5307, urbanized formula grants, by striking the authorization
to utilize these funds for operating costs, but includes a
specific provision allowing the Secretary to make operating
grants to urbanized areas with a population of less than
200,000. Generally, these grants may be used to fund capital
projects, and to finance planning and improvement costs of
equipment, facilities, and associated capital maintenance used
in mass transportation. All urbanized areas greater than
200,000 in population are statutorily required to use one
percent of their annual formula grants on enhancements, which
can include landscaping, public art, bicycle storage, and
connections to parks.
Major project alternatives analysis and preliminary
engineering and design.--The accompanying bill provides
appreciable increases in formula funds allocated to transit
authorities. These funds can be used, among other activities,
for alternatives analysis and preliminary engineering and
design (PE&D) of new rail extensions or busways. The Committee
asserts that local project sponsors of new rail extensions or
busways should use these funds (or those provided under section
5303 metropolitan planning) for alternatives analysis and PE&D
activities rather than seek section 5309 discretionary set-
asides. Moreover, the Committee expects the FTA, when
evaluating the local financial commitment of a given project,
to consider the extent to which the project's sponsors have
used the appreciable increases in the formula grants
apportionments for alternatives analysis and preliminary
engineering and design activities of proposed new systems.
Clean fuels program.--TEA-21 requires that $50,000,000 be
set aside from funds made available under the formula grants
program to fund a new clean fuels program. The clean fuels
program is supplemented by an additional set-aside from the
major capital investment's bus program and provides grants for
the purchase or lease of clean fuel buses for eligible
recipients in areas that are not in compliance with air quality
attainment standards. The Committee has identified designated
recipients of these funds within the projects listed under the
bus program of the capital investment grants account.
Over-the-road bus accessibility program.--The Committee has
provided $6,950,000 in fiscal year 2003 for the over-the-road
accessibility program. This program is designed to assist
operators of over-the-road buses in financing the incremental
capital and training costs of complying with the department's
final rule on accessibility required by the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Of this total, $5,250,000 will be available
for intercity fixed route projects and the remainder will be
available for other services such as local fixed route service,
commuter service or charter service.
Denial of two new initiatives.--The Committee has denied
funding for two new initiatives--the ``new freedom initiative
(-$144,275,000) and ``environmental streamlining''
(-$6,000,000) from the formula grant program. Neither is
authorized. Funding from this program would unfairly reduce
each state's apportionment.
Salaries and benefits.--No funds provided in this Act can
be used by the New York Metropolitan Transit Authority to pay
either the salary or benefits to the elected or appointed
officers of the Association of Commuter Rail Employees. Nor may
any funds in this Act be used to pay the Association of
Commuter Rail Employees unless the New York Metropolitan
Transit Authority makes equal payments to all officers elected
and appointed and all local labor unions in equal proportional
amounts.
The following table displays the state-by-state
distribution of formula funds within each of the program
categories:

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, FISCAL YEAR 2003 GUARANTEED LEVEL APPORTIONMENT FOR FORMULA PROGRAMS (BY STATE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 5310
Section 5307 Section 5311 non- elderly and Total formula
State urbanized area urbanized area persons with programs \2\
disabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama......................... $14,927,927 $6,693,617 $1,582,925 $23,204,469
Alaska.......................... \1\ 8,546,214 932,932 240,303 9,719,449
American Samoa.................. 0 153,033 60,088 213,121
Arizona......................... 44,214,267 3,265,400 1,652,847 49,132,514
Arkansas........................ 8,076,720 4,841,871 1,029,871 13,948,462
California...................... 583,841,997 10,475,294 9,488,919 603,806,210
Colorado........................ 46,448,166 2,907,313 1,160,010 50,515,489
Connecticut..................... 46,629,133 1,488,013 1,128,644 49,245,790
Delaware........................ 6,342,133 674,647 352,994 7,369,774
District of Columbia............ 66,802,132 0 309,042 67,111,174
Florida......................... 158,320,783 6,710,664 6,064,881 171,096,328
Georgia......................... 63,237,705 8,484,475 2,295,637 74,017,817
Guam............................ 1,359,878 60,272 157,227 1,577,377
Hawaii.......................... 26,885,021 1,003,351 476,147 28,364,519
Idaho........................... 5,731,779 1,843,482 455,768 8,031,029
Illinois........................ 220,316,888 7,163,547 3,526,256 231,006,691
Indiana......................... 36,011,838 7,130,780 1,871,517 45,014,135
Iowa............................ 12,875,848 4,838,882 980,862 18,695,592
Kansas.......................... 9,613,682 3,954,869 882,653 14,451,204
Kentucky........................ 19,550,450 6,611,124 1,461,839 27,623,413
Louisiana....................... 31,467,926 5,164,303 1,455,553 38,087,782
Maine........................... 3,062,068 2,566,899 533,084 6,162,051
Maryland........................ 69,014,462 2,800,694 1,545,478 73,360,634
Massachusetts................... 127,232,927 1,907,117 2,041,414 131,181,458
Michigan........................ 68,303,580 8,975,050 2,938,848 80,217,478
Minnesota....................... 42,155,128 5,897,179 1,366,007 49,418,314
Mississippi..................... 5,276,443 5,782,322 1,032,720 12,091,485
Missouri........................ 36,804,592 6,690,078 1,788,808 45,283,478
Montana......................... 2,581,607 1,784,329 384,485 4,750,421
N. Mariana Islands.............. 676,035 20,103 60,998 757,136
Nebraska........................ 8,374,720 2,420,469 596,510 11,391,699
Nevada.......................... 24,300,864 859,972 721,940 25,882,776
New Hampshire................... 4,650,337 1,826,955 457,852 6,935,144
New Jersey...................... 216,873,343 1,764,450 2,587,773 221,225,566
New Mexico...................... 9,107,633 2,555,496 655,206 12,318,335
New York........................ 548,839,731 9,273,805 6,091,120 564,204,656
North Carolina.................. 37,223,366 11,455,078 2,563,722 51,242,166
North Dakota.................... 3,056,087 1,098,920 310,725 4,465,732
Ohio............................ 91,723,614 10,796,386 3,431,195 105,951,195
Oklahoma........................ 13,978,521 5,254,198 1,208,398 20,441,117
Oregon.......................... 36,021,230 3,860,548 1,122,512 41,004,290
Pennsylvania.................... 155,123,266 10,871,771 4,044,433 170,039,470
Puerto Rico..................... 44,710,018 886,606 1,399,708 46,996,332
Rhode Island.................... 8,295,427 321,072 463,004 9,079,503
South Carolina.................. 14,169,630 5,711,432 1,383,261 21,264,323
South Dakota.................... 2,348,155 1,496,539 339,305 4,183,999
Tennessee....................... 28,761,361 7,277,715 1,914,830 37,953,906
Texas........................... 194,268,566 16,176,384 5,644,548 216,089,498
Utah............................ 27,314,937 1,295,746 592,321 29,203,004
Vermont......................... 1,043,904 1,344,823 294,426 2,683,153
Virgin Islands.................. 0 290,119 150,772 440,891
Virginia........................ 54,257,001 6,317,842 2,017,699 62,592,542
Washington...................... 95,180,075 4,247,980 1,720,930 101,148,985
West Virginia................... 4,929,603 3,461,591 784,330 9,175,524
Wisconsin....................... 41,295,126 6,734,456 1,574,405 49,603,987
Wyoming......................... 1,381,764 982,612 256,054 2,620,430
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................. 3,433,535,608 239,404,605 90,652,801 3,763,593,014
Oversight....................... 17,253,948 1,203,038 0 18,456,986
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... 3,450,789,556 240,607,643 90,652,801 3,782,050,000
Clean Fuels..................... .................. .................. .................. 50,000,000
Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility. .................. .................. .................. 6,950,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total............... .................. .................. .................. \2\ 3,839,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $4,825,700 for the Alaska Railroad improvements to passenger operations.
\2\ Does not include new freedom initiatives nor environmental streamlining.

University Transportation Research

Limitation on
Appropriation obligations (Trust
(General fund) fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002. $1,200,000 ($4,800,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2003 1,200,000 (4,800,000)
Recommended in the bill......... 1,200,000 (4,800,000)
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year .................. ..................
2002...........................
Budget request, fiscal year .................. ..................
2003...........................

The accompanying bill provides a total of $6,000,000 for
university transportation research. The recommendation is the
same level as provided in fiscal year 2002. This appropriation
is guaranteed under the transit funding category.
The recommended program level of $6,000,000 is comprised of
an appropriation of $1,200,000 from the general fund and
$4,800,000 from limitations on obligations from the mass
transit account of the highway trust fund.

Transit Planning and Research

Limitation on
Appropriation obligations (Trust
(General fund) fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002. $23,000,000 ($93,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2003 24,200,000 (97,800,000)
Recommended in the bill......... 24,200,000 (97,800,000)
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year +1,200,000 (+4,800,000)
2002...........................
Budget request, fiscal year .................. ..................
2003...........................

The accompanying bill provides a total of $122,000,000 for
transit planning and research. The recommendation is $6,000,000
more than provided in fiscal year 2002 and the same level as in
the budget request. This appropriation is guaranteed under the
transit funding category.
The recommended program level of $122,000,000 is comprised
of an appropriation of $24,200,000 from the general fund and
$97,800,000 from limitations on obligations from the mass
transit account of the highway trust fund.
The bill contains language specifying that $60,385,600
shall be available for metropolitan planning; $12,614,400 shall
be available for state planning; $31,500,000 shall be available
for national planning and research; $8,250,000 shall be
available for transit cooperative research; $4,000,000 shall be
available for the National Transit Institute; and $5,250,000
shall be available for rural transportation assistance.
The bill includes funds for the following projects within
the funds provided for the national program in fiscal year
2003:

Project ACTION (TEA-21)................................. $3,000,000

National planning and research.--Within the $31,500,000 for
national planning and research, support is provided for a
number of important initiatives including:

Calstart/Westart bus rapid transit...................... $2,000,000
Clean mobility and transit enhancements................. 2,000,000
Electric Transit Vehicle Institute, TN.................. 500,000
University of South Florida (Urban Transit Research).... 250,000
Santa Barbara Electric Transit Institute, CA............ 500,000
Hennepin County community transportation, MN............ 1,000,000
Joblinks/Community Transportation Association........... 500,000
Electrostatically-charged aerosol decontamination system 1,000,000
North Dakota Transit Center............................. 400,000
PVTA electric bus project............................... 1,000,000

Electrostatically-charged aerosol decontamination system.--
The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for research on an
electrostatically changed, aerosol decontamination system
(ECADS) to be used in transit systems. Over 20 million riders
in the top 30 U.S. cities utilize metropolitan transit systems
to get to and from their places of employment. Any extended
disruption of these systems due to chemical or biological
attack would not only endanger riders but cripple businesses
and communities that depend on these transit systems. While FTA
and local transit authorities are testing sensor systems to
detect such attacks, there are no available means to
decontaminate, quickly and effectively, a facility after such
an event to provide a safe environment, and restore service and
rider confidence. The Committee believes ECADS has potential to
meet these requirements and requires further evaluation by FTA.

Trust Fund Share of Expenses

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002..................... $5,397,800,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003.................... 5,781,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................. 5,781,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002................. +383,200,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003................ ..................

For fiscal year 2003, the Committee has provided
$5,781,000,000 for liquidation of contract authorization. The
increase over last year is necessary to pay outstanding
obligations of the various transit programs at the funding
levels contained in TEA-21 and supported by prior
appropriations Acts.

Capital Investment Grants

Limitation on
Appropriation obligations (Trust
(General fund) fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 $2,468,200,000 ($2,272,800,000)
\1\^, \2\.......................
Budget request, fiscal year 2003 607,200,000 (2,428,800,000)
\2\............................
Recommended in the bill......... 607,200,000 (2,428,800,000)
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year -1,861,000 +156,000,000
2002...........................
Budget request, fiscal year .................. ..................
2003...........................
\1\ Includes a total of $1,900,000,000 in emergency supplemental
appropriations exclusively for the repair and rehabilitation of
transit systems in the Borough of Manhattan, New York City, New York
following September 11, 2001 (P.L. 107-117 and P.L. 107-206).
\2\ Does not reflect transfer of $50,000,000 from formula grants.

The accompanying bill provides a total of $3,036,000,000 to
be available for capital investment grants. The recommendation
is $195,000,000 more than provided in fiscal year 2002 when the
supplemental appropriations are excluded and the same level as
the budget request. This appropriation is guaranteed under the
transit category.
The recommended program level of $3,036,000,000 is
comprised of an appropriation of $607,200,000 from the general
fund and $2,428,800,000 from limitations on obligations from
the mass transit account of the highway trust fund.
Funds provided for capital investment grants shall be
distributed as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended in
the bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bus and bus facilities................................. $607,200,000
Fixed guideway modernization........................... 1,214,400,000
New starts............................................. 1,214,400,000
----------------
Total............................................ 3,036,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Three-year availability of section 5309 funds.--The
Committee has included bill language that permits the
administrator to reallocate discretionary new start and buses
and bus facilities funds from projects which remain unobligated
after three years. Funds made available in the fiscal year 2000
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act and previous Acts are available for
reallocation in fiscal year 2003 as availability for these
discretionary projects is limited to three years. The Committee
directs the FTA to reprogram funds from recoveries and previous
appropriations that remain available after three years and are
available for reallocation to only those new starts that have
full funding grant agreements in place on the date of enactment
of this Act, and with respect to bus and bus facilities, only
to those bus and bus facilities projects identified in the
accompanying reports of the fiscal year 2003 Department of
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The FTA
shall notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
15 days prior to any such reallocation, consistent with the
department's reprogramming guidelines.

BUSES AND BUS FACILITIES

The accompanying bill provides $607,200,000 for bus
purchases and bus facilities, including maintenance garages and
intermodal facilities. Bus systems are expected to play a vital
role in the mass transportation systems of virtually all
cities. FTA estimates that 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.
TEA-21 requires that funding of $100,000,000 be made
available for a new clean fuels grant program. This funding is
derived from $50,000,000 from the formula grants account and
$50,000,000 from funds allocated for buses under this account.
Designated recipients of the clean fuels grant program--funding
for which is derived in part from the formula grants program--
are identified in the lists below (to the extent funding is
allocated for the purchase of eligible alternative-fuel
vehicles, related facilities and other eligible activities).
Funds made available for bus and bus facilities are to be
supplemented with $21,572,640 from projects included in
previous appropriations Acts. The Committee is aware that these
funds may not be needed due to changing local circumstances or
are in excess of the project requirements. Unexpended funding
from previous appropriations Acts are reallocated:

Lancaster Pennsylvania RRTA bus terminal (1999)
Essex Junction, Vermont, multimodal station rehabilitation
(2000)
Buffalo, New York auditorium intermodal center (1999)
Fayette County, Pennsylvania intermodal parking facility,
(1999)
Ithaca, New York intermodal transportation center
Towamencin Township, Pennsylvania intermodal transportation
center (1999 and 2000)
Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania intermodal facility (1998 and
1999)
Richmond, Virginia GRTC bus maintenance facility (2000)
Birmingham-Jefferson County, Alabama buses (2000)
Dothan Wiregrass, Alabama vehicles and transit facility
(2000)
Jefferson/Montevallo, Alabama pedestrian walkway (2000)
Pritchard, Alabama bus transfer facility (1999)
Wilcox County, Alabama Gees Bend ferry facilities (2000)
Central Midland, South Carolina transit system (2000)
Pee Dee Transit, South Carolina buses and facilities (2000)
South Carolina statewide virtual transit enterprise (2000)
Folsom, California multimodal facility (1999)
Washoe County, Nevada transit improvements (2000)
Fairbanks, Alaska intermodal rail/bus transfer facility
(2000)
Juneau, Alaska downtown mass transit facility (2000)
Georgetown University fuel cell bus and bus facilities
program (2000)

In addition, the Committee directs the FTA not to
reallocate funds provided in the fiscal year 2000 Department of
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act or
previous Acts for the following bus and bus facilities
projects:

Swampscott, Massachusetts, buses
Washington County, Pennsylvania intermodal facilities, buses,
and bus facilities
Foothills Transit, California buses and HEV vehicles
Chatham, Georgia area transit buses and transfer center
Fair Lakes League, Virginia
Dulles Corridor, Virginia park-and-ride express bus program
Fayette County, Pennsylvania intermodal facility
Ithaca, New York intermodal transportation center
Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania intermodal facility

As noted earlier, the Committee will not extend projects
again that have already been extended in previous
Appropriations bills (e.g. 1998 and 1999 funding). Those
projects have had at least four years to spend their funding,
and if they still remain unable to do so, the Committee
believes it is better to allocate these funds to projects that
can obligate these funds in a more timely fashion.
The Committee recommendation assumes the following
distribution of bus and bus facilities funds:

Alabama:
Bevill State Community College transit project...... $500,000
Cullman County Commission (CARTS)................... 150,000
Huntsville intermodal center........................ 4,000,000
Jefferson County, diesel hybrid electric buses...... 1,500,000
Union Station/Molton Street multimodal facility,
Montgomery........................................ 1,000,000
Alaska:
Skagway Municipal and Regional Transit.............. 350,000
Arizona:
Coconino County buses............................... 2,000,000
Phoenix (RPTA) bus facilities....................... 4,200,000
Phoenix (RPTA) bus replacement...................... 3,835,000
Sun Tran bus storage and maintenance facility....... 3,500,000
Sun Tran replacement buses, including alternatively
fueled............................................ 2,000,000
Tucson intermodal center (Union Pacific Depot)...... 4,000,000
Arkansas:
State of Arkansas bus and bus facilities--urban,
rural, and elderly and disabled agencies.......... 3,000,000
California:
Alameda Contra Costa bus and bus facilities......... 2,500,000
Anaheim Resort Transportation (ART) project......... 1,000,000
Antelope Valley Transit Authority, operations and
maintenance facility.............................. 3,000,000
BART Fruitvale Transit Village, parking structure... 500,000
Chinatown intermodal center......................... 2,500,000
Chinco Transcenter, Omnitrans....................... 660,000
City of Salinas, intermodal transportation center... 2,500,000
City of Sierra Madre buses and natural gas vehicle
fueling station................................... 300,000
East County bus maintenance facility................ 3,200,000
El Garces intermodal station........................ 3,000,000
Fairfield/Suisun Transit alternative fueled buses... 1,500,000
Folsom Railroad Block project....................... 3,400,000
Foothill Transit buses.............................. 3,000,000
Fresno Area Express (FAX) buses..................... 1,000,000
Golden Empire Transit District...................... 1,500,000
Los Angeles County (MTA), metro bus program......... 3,500,000
Modesto bus maintenance facility.................... 3,750,000
Monterey-Salinas Transit bus facility and buses..... 4,800,000
MUNI buses and facility upgrade..................... 5,000,000
Municipal Transit Operators Coalition, bus and bus
facilities........................................ 2,500,000
Omnitrans, City of Yucaipa--the Yucaipa Transit
Advancement Project............................... 1,482,000
Redondo Beach, bus transfer station................. 1,000,000
Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) Transit Centers--
Corona, Riverside................................. 2,000,000
Roseville Multitransit Center....................... 1,850,000
Sacramento hydrogen bus technology (University of
California, Davis)................................ 1,100,000
Sacramento Regional CNG bus and bus facility........ 3,000,000
San Diego bus rapid transit......................... 1,000,000
San Fernando Valley East and Ventura Boulevard park
and rides......................................... 1,000,000
San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) zero-
emission buses.................................... 2,770,000
Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District (MTD)
hybrid bus BRT project............................ 1,500,000
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority clean
fuel bus program.................................. 1,500,000
Solano Transportation Authority (STA)--Fairfield/
Vacaville intermodal station...................... 1,000,000
Sonoma County CNG fueling facility upgrade.......... 1,000,000
South Pasadena circulator bus....................... 300,000
Sun Line Transit hydrogen refueling station......... 2,500,000
Yolobus and Unitrans CNG buses...................... 2,600,000
Colorado:
Colorado Transit Coalition.......................... 10,000,000
Connecticut:
Bridgeport intermodal corridor project.............. 4,000,000
Hollyhock station/intermodal transportation center,
Norwich........................................... 4,600,000
New Britain-Hartford busway......................... 2,000,000
New Haven bus maintenance facility.................. 2,000,000
New Haven fuel cell and electric bus project........ 2,000,000
West Haven intermodal station....................... 2,000,000
Delaware:
Delaware Transit Corporation........................ 3,000,000
District of Columbia:
Georgetown University fuel cell transit bus program
(TEA21)........................................... 4,850,000
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority buses 2,000,000
Florida:
Citrus Connection................................... 1,000,000
Collier Area Transit facility....................... 1,500,000
DeLand intermodal center (VOTRAN)................... 2,100,000
Ft. Lauderdale, transit shuttle vehicles............ 2,000,000
Gainesville, mulitmodal transportation center....... 2,000,000
Hillsborough Area Regional Transit (HART)........... 1,000,000
Jacksonville Transit Authority, buses............... 2,500,000
Key West buses and bus facilities................... 500,000
Lee County Transit Division, bus facility........... 1,500,000
LYNX buses, bus facilities and passenger amenities.. 3,000,000
Miami Beach intermodal transit center............... 3,000,000
Miam-Dade buses..................................... 3,500,000
Pinellas County..................................... 4,200,000
Miami-Dade County 7th Avenue Bus transfer center.... 1,000,000
SunTran transit maintenance facility--City of Ocala. 1,600,000
Tallahassee (TALTRAN) buses......................... 2,500,000
Tallahassee (TALTRAN) intermodal center............. 1,000,000
West Palm Beach, trolley buses...................... 2,000,000
Westcoast Florida Bus Coalition..................... 8,000,000
Winter Haven transit terminal....................... 1,000,000
Georgia:
Atlanta, multimodal terminal........................ 4,000,000
Chatham Area Transit................................ 5,300,000
Georgia Regional Transportation Authority, regional
express bus and bus facilities.................... 2,000,000
Georgia Statewide bus replacement program........... 2,000,000
Gwinnett County operators and maintenance facility.. 2,500,000
Macon intermodal center............................. 3,000,000
Metro Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority clean fuel
buses............................................. 2,000,000
Hawaii:
Bus transit centers--Waianae, Mililani, and Wahiawa. 2,000,000
Idaho:
Idaho Transit Coalition............................. 2,635,000
Illinois:
Illinois Statewide bus and buses facilities......... 20,000,000
Indiana:
Fort Wayne Public Transportation Corporation (Fort
Wayne Citilink)................................... 1,200,000
Indiana Transit Consortium, Bloomington Public
Transportation.................................... 1,060,000
Indianapolis Downtown transit facility.............. 4,000,000
Iowa:
Des Moines MTA bus purchase......................... 2,100,000
Iowa City Transit System, intermodal facility....... 2,000,000
State of Iowa buses and bus facilities.............. 8,000,000
Kansas:
City of Wichita, mini-transfer station.............. 800,000
Johnson County, transit vehicle life extension and
improvement program............................... 500,000
Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA)... 1,000,000
Kansas, buses and bus facilities.................... 3,000,000
Lawrence Transit System transfer center............. 2,500,000
Nolte Transit Center in Johnson County.............. 250,000
Unified Government transit bus Replacement--
Wyandotte County/Kansas City...................... 350,000
Wichita Transit Authority........................... 2,000,000
Kentucky:
Fulton County Transit Authority cutaways............ 180,000
Henderson Area Rapid Transit buses.................. 96,000
Kentucky statewide, buses and bus facilities........ 4,690,000
Kentucky Transportation Cabinet--Community Action
groups............................................ 1,425,000
Laurel County intermodal facility................... 5,000,000
Paducah Area Transit Authority buses................ 480,000
Pennyrile Allied Community Services transit facility 372,000
Red Cross Wheels.................................... 2,000,000
Southern and Eastern Kentucky transit vehicles...... 6,000,000
Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky (TANK)....... 3,000,000
Transit Authority of River City..................... 3,000,000
Lousiana:
Louisiana Public Transit Association buses and bus
facilities........................................ 10,000,000
Maine:
Maine Statewide buses and bus facilities............ 2,500,000
Westbrook intermodal facility....................... 1,000,000
Maryland
Maryland Statewide buses and bus facilities......... 8,000,000
Massachusetts:
Attleboro intermodal mixed-use garage facility...... 1,000,000
Brockton Area Transit (BTA) intermodal center....... 1,000,000
Cape Cod intermodal facilities (Cape and Island
Transit Centers).................................. 500,000
CTS Northern Tier buses............................. 300,000
Essex County, City of Peabody, MA, buses............ 48,000
Essex County, Town of Danvers, MA, buses and senior
citicens vans..................................... 66,372
Essex County, City of Lynn, MA, buses and senior
citizen vans...................................... 320,000
Gallagher intermodal transportation center--Lowell
regional transit authority........................ 500,000
Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority, MA,
facility improvements............................. 500,000
Cities of Beverly & Salem, MA, facility improvements 500,000
Cape Ann Transit Authority, MA, buses and trolleys.. 265,628
Montachusett Area Regional Transit (MART) commuter
park and ride facility--Leominster................ 1,500,000
Montachusett Area Regional Transit (MART) passenger
and handicap vans................................. 850,000
Montachusett commuter facilities in Fitchburg....... 3,200,000
Northern Tier intermodal center--Athol.............. 350,000
Springfield Union Station intermodal redevelopment
project........................................... 4,000,000
Worcester Regional Transit Authority (WRTA)
maintenance facility.............................. 400,000
Michigan:
Blue Water Area Transportation commission........... 1,000,000
Branch County Transit Authority..................... 324,000
Caro Transit Authority.............................. 118,000
City of Alma--transportation center intermodal
facility and replacement buses.................... 1,553,000
Detroit Department of Transportation--transit
facility.......................................... 11,000,000
Flint Mass Transit buses............................ 1,000,000
Grand Rapids, buses and bus facilities.............. 1,000,000
Ionia Area Transportation Authority dial-a-ride..... 304,000
Jackson Transportation Authority, bus maintenance
facility.......................................... 1,000,000
Kalamazoo Metro Transit............................. 1,000,000
Lansing, Capital Area Transit Authority............. 1,000,000
Livingston Essential Transportation Service......... 220,000
Ludington Mass Transportation Authority replacement
facility.......................................... 1,050,000
Milan Public Transit................................ 180,000
Sanilac Transportation Corporation.................. 500,000
State of Michigan, bus and bus facilities........... 1,000,000
Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transit
(SMART)........................................... 5,000,000
Washtenaw County, Chelsa Area Transportation System
(CATS)............................................ 264,000
Yates Township Transit System....................... 904,000
Minnesota:
Dakota, Cedar Avenue project........................ 3,000,000
Duluth Transit Authority bus and bus facilities..... 1,000,000
Grand Rapids bus and bus facilities................. 212,000
La Crescent, public transfer hub.................... 60,000
Metropolitan Light Rail Transit Joint Powers Board,
Rush Line Corridor................................ 1,000,000
Metro Transit....................................... 19,000,000
Minneapolis, 63rd Avenue North park and ride........ 1,000,000
Northwest corridor busway........................... 4,000,000
Rochester, buses.................................... 917,600
St. Cloud MTC transit facilities.................... 1,000,000
STEELE buses........................................ 48,000
Mississippi:
Brookhaven multi-modal center....................... 2,000,000
Harrison County multimodal facility and shuttle
service........................................... 1,000,000
Missouri:
Missouri bus and bus facilities--Dunklin County,
Southeast Missouri Transporation Service, City of
Houston, Scott County, Southeast Missouri State
University........................................ 4,000,000
Southwest Missouri State University intermodal
transfer facility................................. 4,500,000
Springfield Public Utilities........................ 1,000,000
St. Joseph buses.................................... 1,000,000
St. Louis Bi-State Development Agency buses......... 4,000,000
Montana:
District IX--Bozeman Galavan........................ 500,000
North Carolina:
City of Charlotte buses and bus facilities.......... 3,000,000
Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation buses 2,000,000
State of North Carolina, bus and bus facilities..... 8,000,000
Triangle Transit Authority (TTA) maintenance
facility.......................................... 500,000
North Dakota:
North Dakota Statewide Capital Transit.............. 2,903,000
Nevada:
Bus Rapid Transit on South Virginia Street, Reno.... 4,900,000
Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) BRT, North
Las Vegas CIVIS Bus Stops......................... 1,000,000
New Mexico:
Albuquerque, transit revenue vehicles............... 2,000,000
Alvorado Transportation Center--Phase II............ 300,000
New Jersey:
Bergen County Intermodal facilities and park-and-
ride.............................................. 4,500,000
Central New Jersey Raritan Valley Line park-and-ride 2,000,000
Harrison New Jersey PATH station rehabilitation..... 500,000
Montclair community wide bus system................. 1,000,000
Morris County, intermodal park-and-rides facilities. 2,500,000
Newark Penn Station intermodal access enhancements.. 2,000,000
Route 80 Howard Boulevard, New Jersey park-and-ride. 500,000
Trenton intermodal station.......................... 1,700,000
New York:
Albany, Capital District Transportation Authority
(CDTA) buses and bus facilities................... 4,400,000
Brooklyn, downtown intermodal transit district...... 1,000,000
Broome County, Binghamton intermodal terminal....... 2,000,000
Buffalo intermodal transportation center............ 2,000,000
Central New York Regional Transportation Authority.. 5,000,000
City of Schenectady buses and bus facilities........ 1,000,000
Jamaica intermodal facility......................... 500,000
Lower Hudson Intercounty bus program................ 1,600,000
Nassau County's Long Island Bus..................... 500,000
New Rochelle intermodal center...................... 1,500,000
Niagara Transportation Authority (NFTA) buses and
bus facilities.................................... 4,500,000
Oneonta Public Transit buses........................ 1,500,000
Orange County buses................................. 2,000,000
Rennselaer intermodal station....................... 1,500,000
Rochester-Genessee Regional Transportation Authority
(RGRTA), Rochester Central Station................ 5,000,000
Ulster County rural bus facility.................... 1,800,000
Utica Transit Authority buses....................... 1,800,000
Westchester County buses............................ 3,500,000
Ohio:
Statewide buses and bus facilities.................. 15,500,000
Oklahoma:
Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking
Authority (COPTA)................................. 4,000,000
Metropolitan Tulsa Transit Authority (MTTA)......... 2,000,000
Oklahoma Transit Association........................ 4,000,000
Oregon:
Albany buses........................................ 220,000
Canby Transit....................................... 200,000
Eugene, Lane Transit District....................... 2,000,000
Portland bus improvements........................... 2,000,000
Rogue Valley Transit District....................... 2,000,000
Wilsonville, South Metro Area Rapid Transit......... 500,000
Pennsylvania:
Adams County, buses................................. 400,000
Altoona (TEA-21).................................... 3,000,000
AMTRAN bus and transit system improvements.......... 1,000,000
Area Transit Authority (ATA) of North Central
Pennsylvania...................................... 2,000,000
Berks Area Reading Transportation Authority, buses
and facilities.................................... 8,000,000
Bucks County Intermodal facility improvement (SEPTA) 1,000,000
Butler Township/City Joint Municipal Transit multi-
modal transfer center............................. 849,000
Cambria County operations and maintenance facility.. 973,500
Capital Area Transit buses.......................... 4,800,000
Endless Mountain Transportation Authority........... 335,000
Fayette County transit facility..................... 1,650,000
Frankford Transportation Center, Philadelphia....... 1,000,000
Harrisburg Intermodal facility...................... 955,000
Indiana County Transit Authority.................... 410,000
Mid-County Transit Authority facilities and
equipment......................................... 1,000,000
Port Authority of Allegheny County buses (including
clean fuels)...................................... 3,000,000
Schuylkill Transportation System buses.............. 1,000,000
Somerset County Transportation System............... 160,000
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority,
paratransit vehicles.............................. 1,000,000
Westmoreland County Transit Authority............... 2,900,000
Williamsport Bureau of Transportation, Lycoming
County (City bus)................................. 2,000,000
Puerto Rico:
Puerto Rico Metropolitan Bus Authority (MBA), buses
and bus facilities................................ 1,000,000
Rhode Island:
Rhode Island buses and alternatively fueled
infrastructure.................................... 3,000,000
South Carolina:
Myrtle Beach Regional multimodal transit center..... 2,250,000
North Charleston regional intermodal transportation
center............................................ 1,000,000
South Carolina DOT, vehicles and facilities......... 7,000,000
Union Station intermodal transportation center, City
of Sumter......................................... 6,100,000
South Dakota:
South Dakota Statewide, buses and bus facilities.... 2,000,000
Tennessee:
Electric Transit intermodal center project,
Knoxville......................................... 3,400,000
State of Tennessee, buses and bus facilities........ 10,000,000
Texas:
Abilene buses and bus facilities, Citylink.......... 1,400,000
Corpus Christi Regional Transportation Authority
(RTA) buses and bus facilities.................... 1,000,000
Fort Worth Transportation Authority................. 5,000,000
Galveston, buses.................................... 1,000,000
Houston Advanced Transit Program.................... 5,000,000
Laredo, administrative, operations, and maintenance
facility.......................................... 3,500,000
Odessa and Midland, alternatively fueled buses...... 2,000,000
San Antonio, VIA Metropolitan Transit Authority..... 1,000,000
Texas Tech University park-and-ride, buses.......... 3,750,000
Waco Transit maintenance and administration
facility, buses................................... 3,866,000
Woodlands District park-and-rides................... 2,400,000
Utah:
State of Utah, bus and bus facilities............... 1,990,000
Vermont:
Winooski Falls downtown multimodal transportation
center............................................ 1,000,000
Virginia:
Arlington bus transfer stations..................... 600,000
Greater Roanoke Transit Company (GRTC) buses........ 2,104,000
Hampton Roads regional bus plan..................... 1,000,000
Petersburg Area Transit............................. 1,500,000
Potomac Rappahannock Transportation Commission buses 2,100,000
Potomac Yard Transitway............................. 1,600,000
Virgin Islands:
Virgin Islands Transit (VITRAN) buses............... 1,000,000
Washington:
Clark County, C-TRAN Vancouver mall transit center.. 557,000
Grant Transit Authority............................. 452,000
Grays Harbor Transportation minibuses............... 144,000
Intercity Transit (Thurston County) fare collection
equipment......................................... 500,000
Issaquah Highlands park-and-ride.................... 2,800,000
Jefferson Transit facilities........................ 2,000,000
King Street Station multimodal facility............. 500,000
Lakewood SR 512 park-and-ride expansion............. 3,000,000
Mason County Transportation Authority facilities.... 360,000
Mercer Island transit center, park-and-ride......... 1,000,000
Mount Vernon multi-modal facility and buses......... 2,000,000
Pullman Transit buses............................... 1,150,000
West Virginia:
Huntington, Tri-State Transit Authority............. 1,000,000
Monongalia Courthouse Annex in Morgantown,
intermodal parking facility....................... 7,000,000
Wisconsin:
Wisconsin Statewide bus and bus facilities.......... 24,000,000
Wyoming:
Wyoming Department of Transportation buses and bus
facilities........................................ 2,500,000

Bevill State Community College transit project.--Funding
provided to Bevill State Community College transit project may
also be made available to Jasper, Alabama for work in
conjunction with this project.
Dulles Corridor park-and-ride.--Funding provided to the
Dulles Corridor park-and-ride express bus program in fiscal
year 2000 can also be used for the Reston East park-and-ride
project in Virginia.
Fort Worth intermodal center park and ride facility.--
Funding provided to the Fort Worth intermodal center park and
ride facility in 2002 shall be used to facilitate the finish
out of the intermodal connections into downtown Fort Worth and
to enhance the linkage of TRE with the T's bus operation and
park and ride elements occurring at two locations: the ITC (and
geographically related areas like the 7th Street parking lot
and Alarm Supply Building) and a larger facility at the Texas
and Pacific Station.
Kansas buses.--Funding provided for the Wyandotte County
buses and the Kansas City Joblinks in fiscal year 2001 shall be
made available to the Unified Government of Wyandotte County/
Kansas City to replace buses.
Commonwealth of Kentucky.--Of the $4,690,000 provided for
statewide bus and bus facilities, $628,160 shall be for the
Bluegrass Community Action Services, $58,400 shall be for the
City of Frankfort; $760,000 shall be for Kentucky Rivers
Foothills Development Council; $138,000 shall be for the
Community Action Council of Fayette/Lexington, $639,000 shall
be for the Lexington Red Cross, $66,000 shall be for East
Kentucky Independent Service Organization, and $2,400,000 shall
be for Lexington Transit Authority.
Mt. Sinai Intermodal Center.--Funding provided for the Mt.
Sinai Intermodal Center in fiscal year 1992 shall also be made
available to the Miami Beach, Florida intermodal facility.
State of Illinois.--Within the funding allocated to the
State of Illinois, $2,000,000 should be provided to begin the
refurbishment of the Dan Ryan station.
State of Michigan.--Of the $1,000,000 provided to the State
of Michigan, $261,100 shall be for Alger County public transit,
$350,100 shall be for Charlevoix County public transit,
$124,900 shall be for Delta Area Transit Authority, $51,000
shall be for Houghton motor transit line, $38,900 shall be for
Ontonogan County public transit, $47,000 shall be for the City
of Sault Ste Marie dial-a-ride, and $127,000 shall be for
Schoolcraft County public transportation.
Swampscott buses.--Funding provided for Swampscott buses in
fiscal year 2000 may also be made available to Lynnfield,
Massachusetts to replace buses.
State of Ohio.--Within the funding provided to the State of
Ohio, $1,000,000 should be provided to the East Side transit
center in Cleveland, $2,000,000 for the multimodal
transportation center in Kent, and $4,000,000 for the
Government Square transit center in Cincinnati.
Sierra Madre Villa Intermodal Center.--Funding provided for
the Sierra Madre Villa Intermodal Center in fiscal year 2002
shall also be made available to the Los Angles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) for bus and bus
related facilities in the LACMTA's service area.

FIXED GUIDEWAY MODERNIZATION

The accompanying bill provides $1,214,400,000 from the
capital investment grants program to modernize existing rail
transit systems. These funds are to be distributed, consistent
with the provisions of TEA-21, as follows:

SECTION 5309 FIXED GUIDEWAY MODERNIZATION APPORTIONMENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
State ---------------------------------------- Change from fiscal
2002 2003 Estimate year 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska.............................................. $8,974,767 $2,423,937 -$6,550,830
Arizona............................................. 1,607,863 1,845,317 237,454
California.......................................... 125,266,567 139,151,518 13,884,951
Colorado............................................ 1,962,656 2,261,031 298,375
Connecticut......................................... 39,070,586 40,546,804 1,476,218
Delaware............................................ 931,285 0 \1\-931,285
District of Columbia................................ 48,787,806 57,562,724 8,774,918
Florida............................................. 16,840,663 19,685,468 2,844,805
Georgia............................................. 23,114,533 27,042,153 3,927,620
Hawaii.............................................. 1,094,132 1,304,537 210,405
Illinois............................................ 125,263,153 131,151,605 5,888,452
Indiana............................................. 8,429,345 8,972,016 542,671
Louisiana........................................... 2,881,274 2,972,818 91,544
Maryland............................................ 26,748,405 29,372,229 2,623,824
Massachusetts....................................... 71,701,594 75,767,529 4,065,935
Michigan............................................ 487,176 575,906 88,730
Minnesota........................................... 5,094,649 5,896,427 801,778
Missouri............................................ 4,265,676 5,008,671 742,995
New Jersey.......................................... 99,960,024 104,313,737 4,353,713
New York............................................ 349,553,296 368,542,791 18,989,495
Ohio................................................ 17,355,872 18,427,652 1,071,780
Oregon.............................................. 4,167,985 4,930,300 762,315
Pennsylvania........................................ 95,692,115 100,301,564 \1\ 4,609,449
Puerto Rico......................................... 2,313,155 2,722,582 409,427
Rhode Island........................................ 84,705 98,373 13,668
Tennessee........................................... 329,166 406,222 77,056
Texas............................................... 7,887,580 9,197,893 1,310,313
Virginia............................................ 15,441,327 18,194,293 2,752,966
Washington.......................................... 19,519,362 22,695,789 3,176,427
Wisconsin........................................... 756,488 884,114 127,626
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total Apportioned............................. 1,125,583,205 1,202,256,000 76,672,975
Oversight (1 percent)............................... 11,364,000 12,144,000 7,938,000
-----------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total................................... 1,136,947,205 1,214,400,000 84,610,795
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1990 census urbanized areas of Wilmington, DE-NJ-MD-PA and Philadelphia, PA-NJ were merged to form the
Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD under the 2000 census. The FY 2003 apportionment for this urbanized area was
allocated to Pennsylvania.

NEW STARTS

The accompanying bill provides $1,214,400,000 for new
starts. These funds are available for preliminary engineering,
right-of-way acquisition, project management, oversight, and
construction of new systems and extensions. TEA-21 requires
that no more than eight percent of the funding provided for new
starts be available for preliminary engineering and design
activities. Funds made available in this Act for new starts are
to be supplemented with $23,436,971 from projects included in
previous appropriations Acts. The Committee is aware that these
funds are not needed due to changing local circumstances or are
in excess of project requirements. The bill, therefore,
reallocates the following unexpended sums from previous
appropriations Acts, the fiscal years of which are noted in
parentheses:

Burlington-Essex, Vermont commuter rail project (1998, 1999)
Stamford, Connecticut fixed guideway connector (2000)
West Trenton, New Jersey rail project (2000)
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Capital Area Transit, Corridor One
commuter rail project (2000)
Charleston, South Carolina Monobeam corridor project (1999)
Birmingham, Alabama transit corridor (2000)
Cleveland-Berea, Ohio red line extension to Hopkins
International Airport (1999)
Dayton, Ohio light rail study (2000)
Albuquerque, New Mexico light rail project (1999)
Greater Albuquerque, New Mexico mass rail transit project
(2000)

The Committee, however, directs the FTA not to reallocate
funds provided in the fiscal year 2000 Department of
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act or
previous Acts for the following new start projects:

Roaring Fork Valley, Colorado project (2000)
Twin Cities, Minnesota, transitways project
Altamount, California commuter rail project
Dulles, Virginia corridor project
Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee, Wisconsin rail extension project

The Committee makes these exceptions based on FTA
information that these funds are likely to be awarded by the
first quarter of fiscal year 2003 or soon thereafter.
For those projects where Congress extends the availability
of funds that remain unobligated after three years and would
otherwise be available for reallocation at the discretion of
the administrator, such funds are extended only for one
additional year, absent further congressional direction. The
Committee will not extend projects again that have already been
extended in previous Appropriations bills. Those projects have
had four years to expend their balances, and if they still
remain unable to do so, the Committee believes it is better to
allocate these funds to projects that can obligate these funds
in a more timely fashion.
New starts report.--The Committee was displeased with the
untimely submission of FTA's annual report on new starts
projects. TEA-21 required this report to be submitted in
conjunction with the budget. Yet year after year, this report
is not submitted until months after that date. For example, the
2002 new starts report was provided to the Committee in May,
three months after release of the budget request. Without a
timely submission of this information, the Committee cannot
make well informed decisions about new starts projects. As a
result, the Committee has included bill language that requires
FTA to submit its annual new starts report with the initial
submission of the President's budget request. If the report is
not submitted, FTA's administrative expenses appropriation will
be reduced by $100,000 per day.
Appropriations for full funding grant agreements.--Before
passage of the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (ISTEA), which was the precursor to TEA-21,
there were less than 10 new starts projects that had full
funding grant agreements (FFGAs). Since 1993, a total of 47
FFGAs have been signed or recommended in Presidential budgets.
Currently, there are 26 existing FFGAs. The total capital cost
for these projects is $13.1 billion and the federal commitment
is $6.9 billion.
To meet the increasing demand for transit, more communities
than ever are planning and designing new starts and other
transit projects to add capacity and replace their aging
facilities and equipment. As of February 2002, in FTA's new
starts pipeline, there are over 100 projects in alternatives
analysis; another 39 have been approved for entry into
preliminary engineering; and an additional 12 projects have
been approved for entry into final design. Collectively, these
projects reflect an estimated investment of $42 billion. Of
that total, the project sponsors are planning to seek
approximately $20 billion of new starts funds. Many of the
projects in final design and preliminary engineering will be
seeking an FFGA in the next two years. Currently, federal
resources are not available to fund even a fraction of these
projects.
In fiscal year 2003, of the $1,214,400,000 guaranteed for
new starts projects, approximately $1,046,870,000 (86 percent)
is allocated to projects that currently have an FFGA. In
addition, approximately $10,296,000 is reserved for Alaska and
Hawaii ferries. This leaves approximately $157,230,000 in truly
discretionary funds that can be allocated to new starts
projects without FFGAs.
Since demand has so quickly outstripped available
resources, the Committee has had to make difficult decisions in
this area. The Committee recommendation adheres to the
following guidelines: First, the Committee has tried to fund
every project that has a current FFGA at its funding schedule
(commonly referred to as the schedule 6) unless the project is
experiencing financial or construction problems. Second, the
Committee has tried to complete as many current FFGA
commitments as possible so that additional resources will be
freed up for fiscal year 2004. Third, because of the limited
dollars available for final design and preliminary engineering
activities, no funding has been provided for projects currently
in the alternatives analysis phase. Local project sponsors of
new rail extensions or busways may use section 5307 formula
funds or section 5303 metropolitan planning funds for
alternatives analysis activities rather than seek section 5309
discretionary set-asides. Fourth, the Committee reiterates its
direction originally agreed to in the fiscal year 2002
conference report that FTA should not sign any FFGAs after
September 30, 2002 that have a maximum federal share higher
than 60 percent. Based on this earlier direction, significant
appropriations have been provided for those projects in final
design or preliminary engineering that have a federal share of
no more than 60 percent. Less, or in some instances no, funding
has been provided for those projects that have a federal share
above 60 percent. The Committee strongly encourages the
impacted projects to revisit the amount of local funding being
contributed and seek effective ways to increase their local
share.
In total, the $1,238,818,050 provided in this Act, together
with previous appropriations, are to be distributed as follows:

Project Name Recommend
Alaska/Hawaii ferries................................... $10,296,000
Atlanta, GA, North Springs (North Line Extension)....... 16,110,000
Baltimore, MD, Central LRT Double Tracking Project...... 10,500,000
Boston, MA, South Boston Piers Transitway............... 681,824
Charlotte, NC, South Corridor Light Rail Transit Project 14,000,000
Chicago, IL, Douglas Branch Reconstruction.............. 55,000,000
Chicago, IL, North Central Corridor Commuter Rail....... 20,000,000
Chicago, IL, Ravenswood Reconstruction.................. 4,000,000
Chicago, IL, South West Corridor Commuter Rail.......... 20,000,000
Chicago, IL, Union Pacific West Line Extension.......... 12,000,000
Cleveland, OH, Euclid Corridor Transportation project... 4,000,000
Dallas, TX, North Central Light Rail Extension.......... 70,000,000
Denver, CO, Southeast Corridor LRT...................... 70,000,000
Ft. Lauderdale, FL, Tri-County Commuter Rail Upgrades... 39,689,213
Little Rock, AR, River Rail Streetcar Project........... 700,000
Los Angeles, CA, Eastside Corridor LRT.................. 8,200,000
Los Angeles, CA, North Hollywood Red Line............... 40,485,912
Lowell, MA-Nashua, NH, Commuter Rail Extension.......... 5,000,000
Maryland, MARC Commuter Rail Improvements............... 11,500,000
Memphis, TN, Medical Center Rail Extension.............. 15,610,000
Minneapolis, MN, Hiawatha Corridor LRT.................. 60,000,000
Minneapolis, MN, Northstar Corridor Commuter Rail....... 7,000,000
Nashville, TN, East Corridor Commuter Rail.............. 6,000,000
New Jersey, Hudson-Bergen Light Rail--MOS1.............. 19,200,000
New Jersey, Hudson-Bergen Light Rail--MOS2.............. 50,000,000
New Orleans, LA, Canal Street Streetcar................. 22,000,000
New Orleans, LA, Desire Corridor........................ 1,200,000
New York, NY, Long Island Rail Road, East Side Access
Project............................................. 15,000,000
New York, NY, Second Avenue Subway...................... 4,000,000
Newark-Elizabeth, NJ, Rail Link......................... 60,000,000
Northern Indiana, South Shore Commuter Rail project..... 3,000,000
Oceanside-Escondido, CA, Rail Corridor.................. 15,000,000
Orange County, CA, Centerline Light Rail Project........ 1,800,000
Phoenix, AZ, Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail..... 18,000,000
Pittsburgh, PA, North Shore Connector LRT............... 7,025,000
Pittsburgh, PA, Stage II LRT Reconstruction............. 26,250,000
Portland, OR, Interstate MAX LRT Extension.............. 70,000,000
Puget Sound, WA, Sounder Commuter Rail.................. 5,000,000
Raleigh, NC, Phase I Regional Rail Project.............. 5,000,000
Salt Lake City, UT, CBD to University LRT............... 68,760,000
Salt Lake City, UT, Medical Center Extension............ 20,000,000
Salt Lake City, UT, North-South LRT..................... 718,006
San Diego, CA, Mission Valley East LRT Extension........ 65,000,000
San Francisco, CA, BART Extension to San Francisco
Airport............................................. 100,000,000
San Francisco, CA, Third Street Light Rail Project,
phase II............................................ 1,750,000
San Jose, CA, Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor
Project............................................. 250,000
San Juan, PR, Tren Urbano............................... 59,740,000
St. Louis, MO, Metrolink St. Clair Extension............ 3,368,422
Washington, D.C./MD, Largo Extension.................... 60,000,000
Washington, D.C., Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project. 35,000,000

Atlanta, Georgia, north line extension project.--The
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) is
constructing a 2.3-mile, 2-station extension of the north line
from the Dunwoody station to North Springs. This extension will
serve the rapidly-growing area north of Atlanta, which includes
Perimeter Center and north Fulton County, and will connect this
area with the rest of the region by providing better transit
service for both commuters and inner-city residents traveling
to expanding job opportunities. On December 20, 1994, FTA
issued an FFGA committing a total of $305,010,000 in new starts
funding to this project. In the conference report to the fiscal
year 2000 appropriations act, FTA was instructed to amend the
FFGA for this project to incorporate a change in scope as
authorized under Section 3030(d)(2) of TEA-21. On March 2,
2000, FTA amended the FFGA to include 28 additional railcars, a
multilevel parking facility in lieu of a surface parking lot,
and enhancements to customer security and amenity measures at
the Sandy Springs and North Springs stations. These changes
will increase the total project cost to $463,180,000, and the
Federal share to $370,540,000. Of the $65,530,000 increase in
Federal funding, $10,670,000 will be applied from unexpended
funds identified from cost savings on the Dunwoody section of
the north line extension. Including the prior years funds, a
total of $354,340,000 has been appropriated for this project
through fiscal year 2002. This leaves $16,110,000 million
remaining in the amended FFGA for this project. The Committee
has recommended $16,110,000 in fiscal year 2003 to complete the
federal commitment to this project.
Baltimore, Maryland, central light rail transit double
track project.--The Maryland Mass Transit Administration is
upgrading 9.4 miles of track in designated areas of the
Baltimore central corridor light rail line that are currently
single track. The central corridor is 29 miles long and
operates between Hunt Valley in the north to Cromwell/Glen
Burnie in the south, serving Baltimore City and Baltimore and
Anne Arundel Counties, with extensions providing direct service
to the Amtrak Penn Station and the Baltimore-Washington
International Airport. The proposed project will double-track
eight sections of the central corridor between Timonium and
Cromwell Station/Glen Burnie, for a total of 9.4 miles.
Although no new stations are required, the addition of a second
track will require construction of second station platforms at
four stations. Other elements included in the project are
bridge and crossing improvements, a bi-directional signal
system with traffic signal preemption on Howard Street, and
catenary and other equipment and systems. The double tracking
will be constructed almost entirely in existing right-of-way.
The total cost of the double-tracking and related improvements
is estimated at $153,700,000. The FFGA for this project was
awarded in July, 2001, with a federal commitment of
$120,000,000 (78 percent) in section 5309 new starts funds. A
total of $21,490,000 in section 5309 new starts funds has been
appropriated for this project through fiscal year 2002. For
fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends $10,500,000. Due to
the volume of projects seeking an FFGA, the Committee cannot
fully support those projects that are seeking such a high
federal share from the new starts account.
Boston, Massachusetts, South Boston Piers transitway
project.--The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)
is developing an underground transitway to connect the existing
transit system with the South Boston Piers area. The Piers
area, which is connected to the central business district (CBD)
by three local bridges, is undergoing significant development.
A 1.5-mile tunnel, which is planned 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 the MBTA's red, orange and green lines. Dual-
mode trackless trolleys will operate in the transitway tunnel
and on surface routes in the eastern end of the Piers area.
Phase 1 of this project consists of a 1-mile, three-station bus
tunnel between South Station and the World Trade Center, with
an intermediate stop at Fan Pier. Part of the construction is
being coordinated with the Central Artery highway project.
South Station serves the existing MBTA red line, as well as
Amtrak and commuter rail and bus service. The total estimated
cost of phase I is $601,000,000. Phase II would extend the
transitway to Boylston Station on the green line and the
Chinatown Station on the orange line. Section 3035(j) of ISTEA
directed FTA to enter into an FFGA for this project. On
November 5, 1994, an FFGA was issued for phase I, committing a
total of $330,730,000 in section 5309 new starts funding.
Through fiscal year 2002, a total of $330,050,000 has been
provided for this project. For fiscal year 2003, the Committee
has provided $681,924, which will fulfill the federal
commitment to this project.
Charlotte, North Carolina, south corridor light rail
transit project.--The Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS), in
cooperation with the City of Charlotte, is proposing to design
and construct an 11-mile light rail transit (LRT) line
extending from Uptown Charlotte to the Town of Pineville, North
Carolina, near the South Carolina border. The proposed project
is currently planned to operate within portions of existing
Norfolk-Southern (NS) railroad rights-of-way (ROW), including
sharing ROW with the city's existing downtown trolley system.
The South corridor is an area generally paralleling Interstate
77 along NS railroad ROW in the City of Charlotte and
Mecklenburg County. A 3.7-mile portion of the proposed system--
between Uptown and Scaleybark Road--would operate on abandoned
NS ROW owned by the City of Charlotte. The remainder of the
planned system (7.5 miles) would operate on separate tracks
generally paralleling NS ROW. The proposed project also
includes construction of 16 stations, purchase of up to 15
light rail vehicles and the construction of a light rail
vehicle maintenance and storage facility. The stations at the
southern terminus of the line would include park-and-ride lots
and serve as transfer points for local and feeder bus service.
Total capital costs for the south corridor project are
estimated at $348,200,000 million. The federal share is
estimated to be $174,100,000 (50 percent). Through fiscal year
2002, Congress has appropriated $19,780,000 in section 5309 new
starts funds for this effort. For fiscal year 2003, the bill
includes $14,000,000 for this project.
Chicago, Illinois, Douglas branch reconstruction project.--
The Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) is completing a
reconstruction of the Douglas Branch heavy rail line. Part of
CTA's blue line, the 11-station Douglas Branch extends 6.6
miles from Cermack Avenue to a point just west of downtown
Chicago. Dating to the 19th century, the oldest segment on the
line opened in 1896 and the ``newest'' in 1910, though numerous
improvements and upgrades were made through the mid-1980s. Age-
related deterioration has resulted in high maintenance and
operating costs on the line, as well as declining service. The
Douglas Branch is authorized by section 3030(a)(106) of TEA-21.
The total capital cost of the Douglas branch reconstruction
project is estimated at $482,600,000. In January 2001, FTA and
CTA entered into an FFGA that commits a total of $320,100,000
in section 5309 new starts funds to this project. A total of
$52,200,000 has been appropriated through fiscal year 2002. The
Committee has included $55,000,000 for this project in fiscal
year 2003.
Chicago, Illinois, North Central corridor commuter rail.--
The North Central corridor extends from downtown Chicago to
Antioch on the Illinois-Wisconsin border, and traverses
suburban Lake County. Metra, the commuter rail division of the
Regional Transportation Authority of northeastern Illinois, is
seeking to add a second mainline track along 12 miles of the
53-mile North Central Service commuter rail line and a 2.3-mile
stretch of third track. The proposed project also includes
track and signal upgrades, construction of five new stations,
parking facilities, rail yard expansion and purchase of one new
diesel locomotive and eight bi-level passenger cars. Section
3030(a)(10) of TEA-21 authorized the North Central project. The
major investment study for this project was completed in August
1998, and a locally preferred alternative was selected shortly
thereafter. FTA approved the North Central corridor to initiate
preliminary engineering and the environmental review process in
December 1998. FTA issued a finding of no significant impact on
the environmental assessment in May 2000 and allowed the
project to enter into final design in October 2000. The total
capital cost of this project is estimated at $235,532,216. FTA
awarded Metra an FFGA on November 5, 2001 for a total of
$135,319,330 in new starts funding. Through fiscal year 2002, a
total of $51,260,000 has been appropriated for this project.
The Committee recommends $20,000,000 in fiscal year 2003.
Chicago, Illinois, Ravenswood reconstruction project.--The
Chicago Transit Authority is proposing to reconstruct existing
platforms and stations on the existing Ravenswood (brown) line
to accommodate eight-car trains. The brown line extends 9.3
miles from the north side of Chicago to the ``loop elevated''
in downtown Chicago and includes 19 stations. The majority of
the brown line is operated on an elevated structure (8.1 miles)
except one portion near the north end of the line, which
operates at grade (1.2 miles). The brown line was built between
1900 and 1907. The line currently carries approximately 104,000
average weekday boardings; however, current station and
platform size prohibit CTA from increasing capacity on the line
to handle increased demand. The proposed project would expand
stations and platforms and straighten curves to allow CTA to
operate longer trains, which would increase the capacity of the
line. Section 3030(a)(11) of TEA-21 authorized the project. In
November 1997, CTA included the Ravenswood line expansion
project in the region's financially constrained long-range
transportation plan. CTA is currently completing an examination
of the environmental impacts and benefits related to the
proposed project, including historical preservation issues
related to several stations that would be reconstructed as part
of this project. The environmental review process is scheduled
for completion in 2002. Total capital costs are currently
estimated at $476,000,000. To date, Congress has appropriated
$7,890,000 in section 5309 new starts funds for the project.
The Committee recommends $4,000,000 in fiscal year 2003.
Chicago, Illinois, Southwest corridor commuter rail.--Metra
is planning to extend the existing Southwest commuter rail
line. The 29-mile Southwest line provides service from Orland
Park, Illinois, to downtown Chicago. This project would extend
the line 11 miles from the existing 179th street station in
Orland Park, southwest to Manhattan, Illinois. Also included in
this project are the construction of three miles of a second
mainline track, two additional stations and parking facilities,
and multiple track, signal, and station improvements. The
project also includes expansion of two existing rail yards,
construction of a third rail yard, rehabilitation of several
railroad bridges, and the purchase of two diesel locomotives
and 13 bi-level passenger cars. Finally, the downtown Chicago
terminal would be relocated from Union Station to the LaSalle
street station as part of this project. Section 3030(a)(12) of
TEA-21 authorized the ``Southwest extension''. The total cost
of this project is estimated at $198,100,000. A FFGA was signed
on November 5, 2001 authorizing $103,020,000 in section 5309
new starts funding. To date, Congress has appropriated
$38,500,000 to the project. The Committee has provided
$20,000,000 in fiscal year 2003.
Chicago, Illinois, Union Pacific West line extension
project.--Chicago's Metra commuter rail division is planning
additional extensions and improvements on its Union Pacific
west commuter rail line. The Union Pacific west project, also
known as the Central Kane corridor, is an extension of the
existing 35-mile Union Pacific west line, which currently
provides service between Geneva and downtown Chicago. This
project would extend the line 8.5 miles west to Elburn, with
two new stations serving Elburn and La Fox. The extension
itself will use existing railroad track and right-of-way
currently used by both Metra and the Union Pacific freight
railroad. The scope of the project includes multiple track and
signal improvements, construction of two new stations and
associated parking facilities, a new train yard, and the
purchase of one diesel locomotive and eight bi-level passenger
cars. This project will link rapidly growing communities to the
west of Chicago with the major employment centers in Chicago.
Section 3030(a)(13) of TEA-21 authorizes this project as the
Chicago ``west line expansion''. The total capital costs of the
Union Pacific west extension and improvements project is
estimated at $134,600,000. An FFGA was issued on November 5,
2001 that will provide a total of $80,760,000 in federal new
starts funding. Through fiscal year 2002, a total of
$32,840,000 has been appropriated. A total of $12,000,000 has
been recommended for fiscal year 2003.
Cleveland, Ohio, Euclid corridor transportation project.--
The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA) is
proposing to design and construct a 9.8-mile transit corridor
incorporating exclusive bus rapid transit lanes and related
capital improvements on Euclid Avenue from Public Square in
downtown Cleveland east to University Circle. The proposed
project is known as the Euclid corridor transportation project
(ECTP). The ECTP incorporates a series of transit improvements
including an exclusive center median busway along Euclid Avenue
from Public Square to University Circle, improvements to East
17th/East 18th Street, as well as a ``transit zone'' on St.
Clair and Superior avenues utilizing exclusive transit lanes.
The proposed busway will provide service to the University
Circle area and continue into the city of East Cleveland,
terminating at the Stokes/Windermere rapid transit station.
GCRTA proposes to operate sixty-foot articulated hybrid-
electric buses with both left and righthand side doors for
access and egress of patrons on the corridor. The vehicles will
have access to the entire length of the proposed corridor.
However, conventional buses will not be able to access Euclid
Avenue in the central business district. GCRTA estimates that
29,500 average weekday boardings will use the ECTP in the
forecast year (2025).
Section 3035 of ISTEA authorized FTA to enter into a
multiyear grant agreement for development of the Dual Hub
Corridor, originally considered as a rail link between downtown
and University Circle. In November 1995, the GCRTA Board of
Trustees selected the ECTP as the locally preferred alternative
(LPA), which included a busway and the rehabilitation and
relocation of several existing rapid rail stations. In December
1995, the Northeast Ohio areawide coordinating agency (local
metropolitan planning organization) adopted a resolution
supporting the ECTP. In 1999, GCRTA reconfigured the scope of
the ECTP to incorporate only the construction of a busway along
Euclid Avenue. The rapid rail elements have been eliminated
from the ECTP proposal for Section 5309 New Starts funding. The
environmental review process is scheduled for completion in
2002. Total capital costs for the ECTP are estimated at
$228,600,000 (escalated dollars), of which Cleveland is
expected to seek $135,000,000 in new starts funding for the
project (59 percent). Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has
appropriated $19,390,000 in section 5309 new start funds for
the Euclid corridor transportation project. Of this amount,
$4,720,000 was rescinded or reprogrammed by Congress because of
project delays. For fiscal year 2003, the Committee has
provided $4,000,000 for final design and construction
activities.
Dallas, Texas, north central light rail transit extension
project.--Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) has initiated
construction of the north central corridor light rail transit
(LRT) extension to the region's 20.5 mile starter system.
DART's starter system opened in three phases from June 1996 to
May 1997 (one underground station was opened in 2000). This
extension, part of a 20-year, $4,800,000,000 transit capital
program adopted in fiscal year 1998, measures 12.5 miles long
from the current northern terminus at Park Lane station to the
new terminal in Plano. The extension has nine stations.
Although some single track sections were originally planned,
the DART Board of Directors in 1997 approved the double
tracking of the entire extension. DART estimates that over
17,000 daily riders, of which 6,800 will be new riders, are
expected to use the extension in the year 2010. The project is
estimated to cost $517,200,000. FTA entered into an FFGA with
DART for the north central extension project on October 6, 1999
with a section 5309 new starts commitment of $333,000,000. The
project is currently in the construction phase. An associated
northeast LRT extension is being built solely with local funds.
The project has been included in the regionally adopted
metropolitan transportation plan and transportation improvement
program that conforms with the state implementation plan for
air quality. Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has
appropriated $230,910,000 in section 5309 new start funds to
this project. For fiscal year 2003, the bill includes
$70,000,000 for this project.
Denver, Colorado, Southeast corridor light rail transit
project.--The Regional Transportation District (RTD) and
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) are implementing a
19.12 mile, 13-station light rail line between downtown Denver
and Lincoln Avenue in Douglas County, with a LRT spur line
along I-225 to Parker Road in Arapahoe County. The double track
system is proposed to operate on an exclusive, grade-separated
right-of-way and connect with the existing 5.3-mile central
corridor light rail line in downtown Denver at the existing
Broadway station. At I-25 and Broadway, the southeast corridor
would also connect with RTD's southwest corridor light rail
line that is currently in operation. The total capital cost of
this project is estimated at $879,300,000. Revenue service is
projected to begin by June 30, 2008. Section 3030(a)(23) of
TEA-21 authorized this project. FTA issued an FFGA for this
project on November 17, 2000, which will provide a total of
$525,000,000 in section 5309 new starts funds. A total of
$60,860,000 has been appropriated to this project through
fiscal year 2002. The Committee recommends $70,000,000 for this
project in fiscal year 2003.
Dulles Corridor, Virginia, bus rapid transit project.--The
Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (VDRPT)
proposes to construct, under the technical guidance of the
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), an
approximately 23 mile bus rapid transit (BRT) system as an
interim step to rail in the Dulles Corridor. The Dulles
Corridor, a rapidly growing suburban area west of Washington,
DC, contains major regional employment and residential centers,
including Tysons Corner, Reston Town Center, Dulles
International Airport, the town of Herndon, the Smithsonian Air
and Space Museum annex, and new commercial and residential
development in eastern Loudoun County. The BRT project is
proposed as a minimum operating segment (MOS) of the Dulles
Corridor rapid transit project, which will phase in
implementation of rapid transit technologies throughout the
corridor. The proposed BRT system will be developed as an
interim step to rail, using the reserved lanes of the Dulles
airport access road (DAAR) as a fixed guideway for advanced
technology buses. BRT service will be provided between the
Metrorail orange line and the western regional park and ride
lot located at Route 606 in Loudoun County. The proposed BRT
system will include construction of at least three transit
stations convertible to rail stations located in the median of
the DAAR, stations at major park and ride lots within the
corridor and Tysons Corner, and interface with Metrorail at
Falls Church. BRT service is scheduled for operation in 2006 at
an estimated cost of $389,100,000 (escalated). The fully built
rail project is scheduled for operation in 2010 at an estimated
cost of $3,500,000,000 (escalated). Average weekday boardings
for the BRT are estimated to be 23,000 in 2020 with 13,600
daily new riders.
A major investment study (MIS) for the corridor was issued
in 1996, recommending construction of a Metro-like rail system.
The Dulles Corridor Task Force issued the Dulles Corridor MIS
refinement in July 1999, reaffirming development of a rail
system but with interim development of a BRT system. The phased
BRT/rail system was adopted by the national capital region
transportation planning board and included in the metropolitan
Washington region constrained long range plan in October 1999.
VDRPT and WMATA submitted a request to initiate preliminary
engineering for the BRT MOS and to initiate the NEPA process
for the full Dulles Corridor rapid transit project to FTA in
November 1999.
The recently completed draft environmental impact statement
identifies 5 alternatives for the project including a baseline/
no-build alternative, bus rapid transit, metrorail, a combined
BRT/Metrorail, or a phased implementation. The public hearings
on the project were completed on August 28, 2002, with a final
approval date set for late fall by the Virginia Commonwealth
Transportation Board. Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has
appropriated $115,680,000 for this project in section 5309 new
starts funds. For fiscal year 2003, the bill provides
$35,000,000 for preliminary engineering, final design and
construction activities.
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Tri-Rail commuter rail upgrades
project.--The Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority (Tri-Rail)
operates a 71.7-mile regional transportation system connecting
Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade counties in south Florida.
This area has a population of over four million, nearly one-
third of the total population of Florida. Tri-Rail is proposing
improvements to enhance significantly the service reliability
of commuter rail in the rail corridor owned by the Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT). Tri-Rail intends to
construct a second mainline track, rehabilitate the signal
system, and provide station and parking improvements. In
addition, project costs include acquisition of new rolling
stock, improvements to the Hialeah maintenance yard facility,
and construction of a new, northern maintenance and layover
facility. The proposed project will allow Tri-Rail to operate
20-minute headways during peak commuter hours, as opposed to
the one-hour headways that now exist. On May 16, 2000, FTA
issued an FFGA for segment 5 of the double track corridor
improvement program, which includes construction of 44.31 miles
of the second mainline track and upgrades to the existing grade
crossing system along the entire 71.7-mile south Florida rail
corridor. It is expected to open for revenue service in March,
2005. The first four segments, upgrading the Hialeah
maintenance yard and replacing the New River bridge, while part
of the overall double track corridor improvement program, are
not included in the scope of this project. Total capital costs
for the segment 5 project are estimated at $327,000,000. The
FFGA will provide a total of $110,500,000 in section 5309 new
starts funding. A total of $52,400,000 has been appropriated to
this project through fiscal year 2002. The Committee recommends
$39,689,213 in fiscal year 2003.
Largo, Maryland, Metrorail extension project.--The Maryland
Mass Transit Administration (MTA) and the Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) are joint lead
local agencies planning a proposed 3.1 mile heavy rail
extension of the Metrorail blue line. The proposed Largo
Metrorail Extension will be from the existing Addison Road
Station to Largo town center, located just beyond the Capital
beltway in Prince George's County, Maryland. The project
follows an alignment that has been preserved as a rail transit
corridor in the Prince George's County master plan. The 3.1
mile alignment, containing at-, above- and below-grade
segments, has been modified to be underground or covered
between Central Avenue and the Capital beltway to address
concerns raised during public review of the DEIS. Two new
stations will be provided at Summerfield and at the Largo town
center station. The stations will provide 500 and 2,200 park-
and-ride spaces, respectively, plus a hundred or more kiss-and-
ride spaces and 11 bus bays each. A number of WMATA and Prince
George's County bus routes will connect to the two new
stations; shuttle bus service is proposed between both stations
and the FedEx Field (formerly known as the Redskins Stadium).
The project will also directly serve the USAir Arena, a former
major sports complex planned for entertainment and retail uses.
MTA will manage the project through preliminary engineering,
with WMATA undertaking final design and construction. The
project is anticipated to open for service by December 2004,
with a total capital cost estimated at $433,900,000. Average
weekday boardings are estimated to be 28,500 in 2020 with
16,400 daily new riders. The proposed Largo extension was
approved by the WMATA Board as an addition to the 103-mile
Metrorail adopted regional system in February 1997, applying
WMATA compact funding arrangements, contingent upon requisite
FTA approvals. The project is included in the national capital
region's constrained long range plan. Preliminary engineering
was initiated in February 1996. The draft environmental impact
statement (DEIS) was completed and approved by FTA in October
1996. The draft final environmental impact statement (FEIS) was
completed in September 1999. On December 15, 2000, FTA entered
into an FFGA with WMATA that commits a total of $260,300,000 in
section 5309 new starts funds to this project. This does not
include $5,650,000 in prior year funds that were provided to
the MTA for planning activities associated with the project,
which would bring the total amount of new starts funding to
$265,690,000. To date, Congress has appropriated $72,190,000 to
this project. For fiscal year 2003, the bill includes
$60,000,000.
Little Rock, Arkansas, river rail project.--The Central
Arkansas Transit Authority (CATA) is planning the
implementation of a vintage streetcar circulator system on
existing right-of-way connecting the Alltel Arena, the River
Market, and the Convention Center in downtown Little Rock to
the communities of North Little Rock and Pulaski County. CATA
proposes that service be provided by four replica streetcars
operating on a single track powered by overhead catenary. Phase
I of the proposed system will include a 2.1 mile alignment,
purchase of vehicles, and construction of a maintenance
facility. Ridership projections estimate 1,000 to 1,200 average
weekday boardings with an additional 1,000 to 1,800 riders on
special event days. Phase II of the project includes a proposed
0.4 mile extension along existing right-of-way to the William
Jefferson Clinton Presidential Library site. The project is
estimated to cost $15,100,000 in escalated dollars, with a
proposed section 5309 new starts share of $8,600,000 (57
percent). Because the proposed new starts share is less than
$25,000,000, the project is exempt from the new starts
criteria, and is thus not subject to FTA's evaluation and
rating. A feasibility study was completed in 1997. No formal
major investment study (MIS) was completed due to the limited
scale of the proposed investment, the use of existing rail and
street rights-of-way, and the estimated low cost. FTA approval
to enter the preliminary engineering phase of project
development was granted in May 1998. FTA approved project
entrance into final design in September 1999. Through fiscal
year 2002, Congress has appropriated $7,930,000 in section 5309
new starts funds to this project. For fiscal year 2003,
$700,000 is provided to complete stage I of this project.
Los Angeles, California, Eastside corridor light rail
transit project.--The Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority is proposing to implement a 5.9 mile
light rail transit (LRT) line in the Eastside Corridor,
connecting downtown Los Angeles with low-to moderate-income
communities in east Los Angeles. The proposed system would
include 8 stations and will traverse eastward from Union
Station along Alameda street through the City of Terrace,
Belvedere, and East Los Angeles communities of unincorporated
Los Angeles County. The project would terminate at Atlantic
Boulevard, where a 200 space park-and-ride facility is planned.
The project is primarily at grade, with a 1.8-mile mid-section
underground in tunnel. The project is intended to improve
mobility for residents and employees in the corridor, and
provide improved access to employment opportunities throughout
the MTA service area. By 2020, 15,000 average weekday boardings
are forecasted, including 7,600 new riders.
On May 14, 1993, an FFGA was issued to the Los Angeles
County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) for the
third construction phase, MOS-3. MOS-3 was defined under ISTEA
(Section 3034) to include three segments: the North Hollywood
segment, a 6.3-mile, three-station subway extension of the
Hollywood branch of MOS-2 to North Hollywood through the Santa
Monica mountains; the Mid-City segment, a 2.3-mile, two-station
western extension of the Wilshire Boulevard branch; and an
undefined segment of the Eastside project, to the east from the
existing red line terminus at Union Station. LACMTA later
defined this eastern segment as a 3.7-mile, four-station
extension under the Los Angeles River to First and Leona in
East Los Angeles. On December 28, 1994, the FFGA for MOS-3 was
amended to include this definition of the eastern segment,
bringing the total commitment of Federal new starts funds for
MOS-3 to $1,416,490,000. In January 1997, FTA requested that
the MTA submit a recovery plan to demonstrate its ability to
complete MOS-2 and MOS-3, while maintaining and operating the
existing bus system. On January 14, 1998, the LACMTA Board of
Directors voted to suspend and demobilize construction on all
rail projects other than MOS-2 and MOS-3 North Hollywood
extension. The MTA submitted a recovery plan to FTA on May 15,
1998, which was approved by FTA on July 2, 1998. In 1998, the
MTA undertook a regional transportation alternatives analysis
(RTAA) to analyze and evaluate feasible alternatives for the
Eastside and Mid-City corridors. The RTAA addressed system
investment priorities, allocation of resources to operate
existing transit services at a reliable standard, assessment
and management of financial risk, countywide bus service
expansion, and a process for finalizing corridor investments.
On November 9, 1998, the LACMTA Board reviewed the RTAA and
directed staff to reprogram resources previously allocated to
the Eastside and Mid-City extensions to the implementation of
RTAA recommendations. In June 1999, the MTA initiated a re-
evaluation/major investment study on the Eastside corridor, and
began a draft environmental impact statement on the corridor in
March 2000. In June 2000, the MTA board formally selected a
light rail transit technology in the Eastside corridor as the
locally preferred alternative. FTA approved the initiation of
preliminary engineering in August 2000. The MACMTA plans to
begin final design in the fall of 2002, and begin construction
in 2003. The total capital cost of this project is estimated to
be $817,900,000, of which MTA will seek $490,700,000 (60
percent) in section 5309 new starts funding. Through fiscal
year 2001, Congress has appropriated $76,480,000 for the
original Eastside and Mid-City projects. Through fiscal year
2002, Congress appropriated $21,300,000 for the Eastside
project. For fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends
$8,200,000.
Los Angeles, North Hollywood, California, extension
project.--Continuing the discussion noted above under the
Eastside corridor, on June 9, 1997, FTA and LACMTA negotiated a
revised FFGA covering the North Hollywood segment (phase 1-A)
of MOS-3, which opened in May 2000. The total capital cost of
the North Hollywood project was estimated at $1,310,820,000, of
which the revised FFGA commits $681,040,000 in section 5309 new
starts funds. Through fiscal year 2002, a total of $640,350,000
has been appropriated for the North Hollywood segment of MOS-3.
The Committee recommends $40,485,912 to complete the commitment
under the revised FFGA for this project.
Lowell, Massachusetts-Nashua, New Hampshire, commuter rail
extension project.--The New Hampshire Department of
Transportation (NHDOT) is proposing to design and construct a
12-mile extension of an existing commuter rail line from
Lowell, Massachusetts to Nashua, New Hampshire. The proposed
project would extend existing commuter rail service provided by
the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) on an
anticipated schedule of six round trips per weekday and three
roundtrips on Saturday. The proposed service extension would
provide an alternative to a highly congested highway corridor
and is also anticipated to provide traffic mitigation during
the planned expansion of Route 3 in Massachusetts. The proposed
project also includes the purchase of commuter rail equipment
for use by the MBTA, rehabilitation of existing track and the
construction of new trackage (where necessary), and a park-and-
ride lot with a boarding platform near Everett Turnpike (exit
2) in Nashua. MBTA anticipates 900 weekday boardings at the
start of service. In 1999, the Nashua Regional Planning
Commission (NRPC) completed a major investment study that
analyzed the passenger rail market, required capital
investments, operational issues, and several alternatives to
the commuter rail extension option. In June 1999, NRPC and
NHDOT selected the extension as the locally preferred
alternative. FTA approved NHDOT's request to initiate
preliminary engineering on the project in May 2000. NHDOT is
currently undergoing the environmental review phase of the
proposed project. The total capital cost for the commuter rail
extension is estimated at $40,700,000 (escalated dollars), with
a proposed section 5309 new starts share of $18,000,000 (44
percent). Since the proposed new starts share is less than
$25,000,000, the project is exempt from the new starts
criteria. Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated
$5,930,000 in section 5309 new starts funds for this effort.
For fiscal year 2003, the bill includes $5,000,000 for this
project.
Maryland (MARC) commuter rail improvements project.--The
Maryland Mass Transit Administration is proposing three
projects for the Maryland Commuter Rail (MARC) system serving
the Baltimore, MD and Washington, DC metropolitan areas. These
projects are: (1) Mid-day storage facility, (2) Penn-Camden
connection, and (3) Silver Spring intermodal transit center.
The proposed Mid-Day storage facility would be used for daytime
equipment layover, minor repair, daily servicing and
inspections of commuter rail trains sets within the Amtrak yard
at Washington D.C.'s Union Station. Platforms that are
currently used to store these trains at Union Station are no
longer available due to the introduction of high-speed Amtrak
service, and the new facility will avoid the operating cost of
sending trains back to Baltimore for mid-day storage. MTA will
lease the five-acre site owned by Amtrak. The estimated capital
costs for the project total $26,600,000. The Penn-Camden
connection is a six-mile connection between the MARC Camden
line and MARC Penn line/Amtrak Northeast corridor in southwest
Baltimore. The connection of these two commuter rail lines is
designed to achieve many benefits: the opportunity to remove
trains from the congested Camden line for reverse peak
movements; access to the planned MARC maintenance facility to
be located along the connection; and increased operating
flexibility on both commuter rail lines. Estimated capital
costs for the project total $30,800,000. With the development
of the Silver Spring intermodal transit center, MTA will
relocate a transit center from the Silver Spring MARC station
to the Silver Spring metrorail station. The transit center
would allow convenient passenger transfers between several
modes of travel. The center will also accommodate the proposed
Georgetown branch trolley to operate between Silver Spring and
Bethesda, Maryland. Estimated capital costs for the project
total $33,300,000. The proposed MARC commuter rail improvements
are in varying stages of planning and project development--the
Mid-day storage facility is in final design; a finding of no
significant impact was issued in November 1999 for the MARC
Penn-Camden connection and final design is in process; an
environmental assessment for the MARC Silver Spring intermodal
center has been completed; and FTA action is pending local
decisions regarding joint development opportunities for the
site. The total cost of the project is estimated at
$90,700,000, with $37,800,000 (42 percent) to be derived from
section 5309 new starts funds. Through fiscal year 2002,
$26,360,000 has been appropriated for these improvements. The
Committee recommends $11,500,000 for fiscal year 2003. This
funding will complete the federal commitment to these three
projects.
Memphis, Tennessee, Medical Center rail extension
project.--The Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA), in
cooperation with the City of Memphis, is building a 2.5-mile
light rail transit extension to the Main Street Trolley/
Riverfront Loop village rail system. The extension would expand
the central business district (CBD) rail circulation system to
serve the Medical Center area east of the CBD. The project
would operate on the city streets in mixed traffic and would
connect with the Main Street trolley, sharing a lane with
automobile traffic on Madison Avenue between Main Street and
Cleveland Street. At the eastern terminus, near Cleveland
Street, a bus transfer point and a small park-and-ride lot
would be constructed to accommodate transfers with buses and
cars. At the western terminus, existing stations on Main Street
near Madison Avenue would be utilized for transfers to/from the
Main Street trolley/riverfront loop system. Six new stations
would be located along the route. The line will be designed to
accommodate light rail vehicles but vintage rail cars would be
utilized until a proposed regional LRT line is implemented and
a fleet of modern LRT vehicles is acquired. The project is
proposed as the last segment of the downtown rail circulation
system as well as the first segment of a regional light rail
line. The total capital cost of the 2.5-mile project is
estimated at $74,580,000. On December 12, 2000, FTA issued an
FFGA committing a total of $59,670,000 in section 5309 new
starts funds to the Medical Center extension. Through fiscal
year 2002, a total of $35,310,000 has been appropriated. For
fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends $15,610,000.
Miami Metromover Stage I.--As agreed to in the 1999
conference report, the Committee permits FTA to reprogram
$5,834,000 in new starts funds, originally obligated for Miami-
Dade Transit (MDT) Metromover Stage I, to the Metrorail
Palmetto Extension project.
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, Hiawatha corridor
project.-- Metro Transit and the Metropolitan Council (local
metropolitan planning organization), in cooperation with the
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), Hennepin County
and the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), plan to
implement a 11.6-mile, 17 station light rail line linking
downtown Minneapolis, the Minneapolis-St. Paul international
airport, and the Mall of America in Bloomington. The line will
operate on the Hiawatha Avenue/Trunk Highway 55. The LRT is the
transit component of a locally preferred alternative, which
includes reconstruction of TH-55 as a four lane, at-grade
arterial between Franklin Avenue and 59th Street and
construction of an interchange between TH-55 and TH-63
(Crosstown Highway). Current plans call for the north end of
the LRT to begin in the Minneapolis central business district
(CBD) and operate on the existing transit mall along 5th
Street. The LRT is planned to exit the CBD near the Hubert H.
Humphrey Metrodome, following the former Soo Line Railroad to
Franklin Avenue, then parallel Hiawatha Avenue. The project
will include a 1.8-mile tunnel to be constructed under the MSP
airport runways and taxiways with the construction of one
station. The line is then planned to emerge from the tunnel on
the West side of the airport with a station located at the HHH
Terminal. It then would continue south with three proposed
stations in Bloomington, including a station near the Mall of
America. The project is expected to serve 24,800 average
weekday boardings by the year 2020; 19,300 average weekday
boardings are projected in the opening year. The estimated
capital cost for the 11.6-mile Hiawatha Avenue LRT, including
17 proposed stations, totals $675,400,000. In January 2001, FTA
issued an FFGA that commits a total of $334,030,000 in section
5309 new starts funds to the Hiawatha Corridor LRT. Of this,
$168,350,000 has been appropriated through fiscal year 2002.
For fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends $60,000,000.
Minneapolis-Rice, Minnesota, Northstar corridor commuter
rail.--The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is
proposing to design and construct an 82-mile commuter rail line
within the Northstar corridor connecting the Minneapolis-
St.Paul metropolitan area and Rice, Minnesota. The proposed
project also includes a 0.3-mile extension of the proposed
Hiawatha Corridor LRT project from its currently planned
terminus in downtown Minneapolis to provide a direct link to
the proposed commuter rail service. The project would also have
a direct link to the 4th Street Transit Center and the downtown
Minneapolis skyway system. The proposed commuter rail line
would operate along existing Burlington-Northern Santa Fe
(BNSF) railroad track. The commuter rail project also includes
the purchase of five locomotives, 17 passenger rail cars, and
construction of layover and vehicle storage facilities. In May
1998, the Northstar Corridor Development Authority undertook a
major investment study and draft environmental impact statement
to examine the transportation options in the Northstar
Corridor. The MIS was completed in December 1999 with the
selection of a locally preferred alternative. FTA approved
MnDOT's request to initiate preliminary engineering in June
2000 on the commuter rail and light rail extension. A final EIS
is scheduled for completion in mid to late 2002. Following
completion of the final EIS, FTA's issuance of a record of
decision, and the solidification of the state's financial
commitment to the project, MnDOT is planning to request entry
into final design in late 2002. Total capital costs for the
project are $304,000,000, of which, $23,400,000 is for the
Hiawatha light rail extension and $270,600,000 for the
Northstar commuter rail segment. The anticipated federal share
will be $147,000,000 (50 percent). Through fiscal year 2002, a
total of $14,850,000 has been appropriated to this project. For
fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends $7,000,000.
Nashville, Tennessee, East corridor commuter rail
project.--The Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) and the
Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) of Nashville, Tennessee
are proposing the implementation of a 31.1-mile, 5 station
commuter rail line between downtown Nashville and the city of
Lebanon in Wilson County. The east corridor commuter rail
project is proposed to operate on an existing rail line owned
by the Nashville and Eastern Railroad Authority (N&E), a
governmental entity comprised of the Tennessee Department of
Transportation (TDOT), Wilson County, Lebanon, Mt. Juliet, and
the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County.
Rolling stock and maintenance facilities will be leased from
the N&E. In 1996, the MTA and RTA initiated a study to explore
the potential of commuter rail in the Nashville region. From
this study, six corridors were considered for further
evaluation. A 1998 study analyzed the capital costs for the
three most promising corridors. As the result of these studies
and efforts of the Nashville area commuter rail task force--
which includes the Nashville Chamber of Commerce, area business
leaders, the MPO, MTA, RTA, the Tennessee Department of
Transportation (TDOT), CSX Railroad and the Nashville and
Eastern Rail Authority, and the Nashville congressional
delegation--the east corridor was selected as the first
corridor to be implemented in the Nashville area commuter rail
system. The Nashville MPO included the east corridor commuter
rail project in its fiscally constrained long range
transportation plan in September 1999. FTA approved the project
into preliminary engineering on November 30, 1999. The RTA
completed an environmental assessment and received a finding of
no significant impact for the project in May 2000. In June
2001, FTA approved the project to advance into final design.
The MTA is currently considering moving to a minimum operating
segment that would be exclusively within Davidson County. The
project is estimated to cost $33,200,000 in escalated dollars,
with a proposed section 5309 new starts share of $22,900,000
(69 percent). Because the proposed new starts share is less
than $25,000,000, the project is exempt from the new starts
criteria, and is thus not subject to FTA's evaluation and
rating. Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated
$11,870,000 for the project. For fiscal year 2003, the
Committee recommends $6,000,000 for final design and
construction. Due to the volume of projects seeking an FFGA,
the Committee cannot fully support those projects that are
seeking a high federal share from the new starts account. The
Committee strongly encourages Nashville to revisit the amount
of local funding they plan to contribute to this project, and
find ways to increase the local share.
Newark-Elizabeth, New Jersey, rail link project.--The New
Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ Transit) is developing a one
mile, five station minimum operable segment (MOS) of an 8.8-
mile, 16-station light rail transit (LRT) system which will
eventually link Newark and Elizabeth, New Jersey. The MOS will
function as an extension of the existing 4.3-mile Newark City
subway light rail line, running from Broad Street Station in
Newark to Newark Penn Station. NJ Transit estimates that the
one mile MOS will cost $207,700,000 (escalated dollars),
including associated stations, and will serve 13,300 average
weekday boardings in 2015. NJ Transit estimates that the entire
8.8-mile project will have a capital cost of $694,000,000 (1995
dollars) and will carry 24,900 average weekday boardings per
day in 2015. The Newark-Elizabeth rail link is being advanced
in three stages: the MOS, a one mile connection between the
Broad Street station and Newark Penn Station; the second
segment, a one mile line from Newark Penn station to Camp
Street in downtown Newark; and the third segment, a seven mile
LRT line from downtown Newark to Elizabeth, including a station
serving Newark International Airport. The draft environmental
impact statement (DEIS) covering all three stages of the full
build alternative was completed in January 1997. The final
environmental impact statement (FEIS), which addressed only the
MOS, was completed in October 1998. The FTA signed the record
of decision (ROD) for the MOS in November 1998. In August 2000,
FTA and New Jersey Transit executed an FFGA for MOS-1,
committing $141,950,000 in section 5309 new starts funds to
construct the project. Environmental work on the other segments
of the rail line awaits completion of ongoing planning efforts.
Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated $59,390,000
in section 5309 new starts funds for the Newark rail link MOS-1
project, including funds from the Omnibus Consolidated
Appropriations Act. For fiscal year 2003, the Committee
recommends $60,000,000.
New Jersey Hudson Bergen light rail transit project (MOS-
1).--The New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ Transit) is
constructing a 9.6-mile, 16-station light rail project along
the Hudson River waterfront in Hudson County, from the Hoboken
terminal to 34th Street Bayonne and Westside Avenue in Jersey
City. The line is intended as the initial minimum operating
segment (MOS-1) of an eventual 21-mile, 30-station light rail
line extending from the Vince Lombardi park-and-ride lot in
Bergen County to Bayonne, passing through Port Imperial in
Weehauken, Hoboken, and Jersey City. The core of the system
will serve the high density commercial and residential centers
in Jersey City and Hoboken and connect to ferries, PATH, and NJ
Transit commuter rail lines. MOS-1 is expected to cost
$992,140,000 (escalated dollars) and to carry 31,300 riders per
day. The full 21-mile system is expected to cost $2,000,000,000
(escalated dollars) and to carry 94,500 riders per day. A
portion of the MOS-1 line, between 34th Street and Exchange
Place, opened in April 2000, and the New Jersey Transit began
revenue service from Exchange Place north to the Pavonia-
Newport Station in November 2000. Full service to Hoboken
terminal will begin in the fall, 2002.
In February 1993, NJ Transit initially selected, as its
locally preferred alternative, a 26-station at-grade LRT line
from the Vince Lombardi park-and-ride lot through Hoboken and
Jersey City to Route 440 in Southwest Jersey City. A final
environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the full project was
completed in the summer of 1996. In October 1996, the FTA
issued a record of decision (ROD) for the full project. In that
same month, FTA signed a FFGA committing $604,090,000 of
section 5309 new start funds to support the 9.6-mile MOS-1. In
January 1997, the governor of New Jersey, in conjunction with
the mayor and the City Council of Hoboken, agreed to shift the
alignment in Hoboken to the west side of the city. An
environmental assessment (EA) was completed on the impacts
resulting from this proposed change and submitted to the FTA in
August 1998. Public review of the EA has been completed. The
shift from the east side alignment to the west side alignment
in Hoboken places the station south and adjacent to the Hoboken
terminal and raises the number of stations for the full project
from 6 to 30 stations. The Hudson-Bergen LRT project is one of
eight elements eligible for funding as part of the New Jersey
Urban Core project. Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has
appropriated $584,890,000 in section 5309 new starts funds to
the Hudson-Bergen MOS-1. For fiscal year 2003, the bill
provides $19,200,000 to complete the federal commitment to this
project.
New Jersey, Hudson-Bergen (MOS-2).--The second minimum
operable segment (MOS) of the New Jersey Transit Hudson-Bergen
light rail transit system is a 5.1-mile, seven station segment
running north from Hoboken terminal to the Tonnelle Avenue
park-and-ride lot in North Bergen, and to south 22nd Street in
Bayonne. The Hudson-Bergen MOS-2 line will serve an area with
one of the highest residential densities in the region, and the
downtown Jersey City area contains the largest concentration of
office development in Hudson County. By providing ferry and
commuter rail service, the line will also serve the Manhattan
central business district. MOS-2 is scheduled for completion in
2005 and is anticipated to carry 39,400 average weekday
boardings in 2010. Total costs for MOS-2 are estimated at
$1,215,400,000. FTA issued an FFGA for this project on October
31, 2000, commiting a total of $500,000,000 in section 5309 new
starts funds. The MOS-2 project did not require funding from
the section 5309 new starts program until fiscal year 2003;
however, the issuance of an FFGA in 2000 provided New Jersey
Transit with the authority to borrow funds to begin
construction while the MOS-1 is being completed, under the same
turnkey contract. This permits the entire Hudson-Bergen project
to be constructed at a lower cost by avoiding significant costs
associated with stopping and then restarting a major
construction project. No prior year funding has been
appropriated for MOS-2. The Committee recommends $50,000,000 in
fiscal year 2003.
New Orleans, Louisiana, Canal carline project.--The New
Orleans Regional Transit Authority (RTA) is proposing to return
streetcar service on Canal Street. The project is 5.5 miles in
the downtown area, running along the median of Canal Street.
The Canal Streetcar spine will extend from the Canal ferry at
the Mississippi River in the central business district, through
the Mid-City neighborhood to Carrolton Avenue, where one branch
will continue on Canal street to the cemeteries and another
will follow Carrolton Avenue to City Park/Beauregard Circle.
The project also includes 37 stations: 26 stations on Canal
Street, five stations on the City Park spur, and six stations
on the Riverfront line. In addition, the project includes the
assembly of 24 streetcars, real estate acquisition, utility
relocation, power distribution, signals, communication systems,
upgrades to power stations, track alignments on the Riverfront
Line, construction of a paint/vehicle storage facility, and a
new service/inspection/storage facility on the grounds of the
existing Randolph Street facility on Canal Street. RTA
completed a major investment study for this project in March
1995, fulfilling the requirement for an alternative analysis.
FTA approved entry into preliminary engineering in September
1995, and RTA initiated final design in September 1997. Final
design is essentially complete, contracts for vehicle assembly
have been awarded, and construction contracts were awarded in
mid-2001. Sufficient local funds are now committed to the
project due to an extension of the RTA sales tax. The total
capital cost of this project is estimated at $161,300,000, of
which RTA is expected to seek $129,050,000 in section 5309 new
starts funding (80 percent). To date, Congress has appropriated
$70,030,000 for this project). For fiscal year 2003, the
Committee recommends $22,000,000. While the Committee
recognizes that this project has a pending FFGA, the federal
share for this project is at 80 percent, which is too high.
Numerous discussions have occurred about ways to reduce the
federal share from 80 percent but to no avail. Yet, New Orleans
RTA is also requesting substantial bus and access to jobs
funding from the Committee, which require a local match (20
percent and 50 percent respectively). Since local funds are
available for bus and access to jobs projects, the Committee is
dismayed that the RTA could not increase its local share for
this streetcar project. As such, the Committee cannot fully
support this project at the level requested in the budget.
New Orleans, Louisiana, Desire corridor streetcar
project.--The Regional Transit Authority (RTA) is restoring a
2.9-mile traditional streetcar line in downtown New Orleans, as
part of the locally preferred alternative for the Desire
Corridor. The Desire Corridor streetcar project will operate
along North Rampart Street and St. Claude Avenue between Canal
Street and Poland Avenue. The proposed streetcar alignment will
loop at Canal Street and use exclusive right-of-way in the
median of city streets, as much as possible. The single-track
loop will operate in the median of North Rampart and Canal
Streets and in the traffic lanes of Basin and Toulouse Streets.
The double track section will operate in the left traffic lanes
of North Rampart Street, McShane Place, and St. Claude Avenue
between Elysian Fields and Poland Avenues. The project will
serve the communities of Iberville, Treme, Faubourg, Marigny,
St. Roch, and Bywater. Six major bus transfer points with
construction of center platforms, canopies, passenger benches,
and landscaping will be provided: 16 intermediate stops with
less elaborate center platforms are also planned. The project
also includes the purchase of 13 new vehicles. RTA completed a
major investment study for the Desire Corridor in September
1999. FTA approved initiation of preliminary engineering in
August 2000. The capital cost estimate of the streetcar project
is $93,500,000, of which RTA will be seeking an FFGA for
$56,100,000 (60 percent). To date, $7,160,000 has been
appropriated to the project. For fiscal year 2003, the
Committee recommends $1,200,000.
New York Long Island Rail Road, New York, East Side access
project.--The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) is
the lead agency for the proposed Long Island Rail Road (LIRR)
East Side access project. The project would provide increased
capacity for the commuter rail lines of the Long Island Rail
Road and direct access between suburban Long Island and Queens
and a new passenger terminal in Grand Central Terminal (GCT) in
east Midtown Manhattan, in addition to the current connection
to Penn Station in Manhattan. The East Side Access (ESA)
connection and increased LIRR capacity would be achieved by
constructing a 4,600-foot tunnel from the LIRR Main Line in
Sunnyside, Queens to the existing tunnel under the East River
at 63rd Street. LIRR trains would use the lower level of this
bi-level structure. A second 5,000-foot tunnel would carry LIRR
trains from the 63rd Street Tunnel under Park Avenue and into a
new LIRR terminal in the lower level of GCT. ESA will provide
the LIRR with additional tunnel capacity across the East River.
Increased capacity and headways would be introduced at most
LIRR stations. For example, an additional 24 peak hour trains
would operate through the existing 63rd Street Tunnel to GCT.
Ten new tracks and five platforms will be constructed for LIRR
trains at GCT. In addition, a new LIRR station would be
constructed at Sunnyside Yard to provide access between Long
Island City and Penn Station in Manhattan. The East River
tunnels in Manhattan are at capacity. ESA is anticipated to
improve LIRR tunnel capacity constraints and enable the growth
of the overall system. Total capital costs are approximately
$4,350,000,000 (escalated dollars), including $3,880,000,000
for project management, design, construction and right-of-way,
and $790,000,000 for rolling stock. MTA is expected to seek
$2,172,000,000 in section 5309 new starts funding for this
project (50 percent). In fiscal year 2020, MTA estimates that
this project would serve approximately 167,000 average weekday
boardings at Grand Central Terminal, including 15,400 daily new
riders. MTA estimates an additional 161,000 daily LIRR
boardings serving New York City's Penn Station.
A major investment study (MIS) on the Long Island Rail Road
East Side access was completed in April 1998. In June 1998, the
New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC), the
metropolitan planning organization, passed a resolution
endorsing the recommended extension of the LIRR into Grand
Central station. In September 1998, FTA approved preliminary
engineering and preparation of an environmental impact
statement (EIS) for the project. A DEIS for the LIRR ESA was
completed in May 2000. MTA completed the final EIS in March
2001. A record of decision was issued in May 2001. Through
fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated $68,250,000 in
Section 5309 New Start funds for this project. For fiscal year
2003, the Committee recommends $15,000,000 for preliminary
engineering, final design and construction.
New York, Second Avenue Subway.--The New York Metropolitan
Transportation Authority/New York City Transit (NY MTA/NYCT) is
the lead agency for the proposed Second Avenue Subway projects.
The project would alleviate severe overcrowding conditions that
currently occur on the East Side of Manhattan's only full
north-south rapid transit line (Lexington Avenue, number 4, 5,
and 6 lines). In addition, the project would reduce the overly
long travel times and improve transit accessibility to the east
side of Manhattan. The Second Avenue Subway would be
constructed as an eight-mile subway extending from 125th Street
(Harlem) to the Financial District in lower Manhattan. Two
services are proposed, one on Manhattan's East Side from 125th
Street to lower Manhattan via Second Avenue, and the other from
125th Street to 63rd Street via Second Avenue and then
continuing south and to Brooklyn via the existing Broadway
line. On the Second Avenue alignment, the line would enter
lower Manhattan via either the existing Nassau Street subway or
via Water Street, using existing tunnels that were constructed
during the 1970s. The new eight-mile tunnel would include
approximately 19.5 miles of trackage (double track and
bellmouths) from 125th Street to lower Manhattan and 16 new
stations. Total capital costs for the project are estimated at
$16.8 billion (escalated dollars), including $16.18 billion for
project management, design, construction, and right-of-way and
$624,900,000 for rolling stock. Of this total, the federal
share is estimated at $8.38 billion (50 percent). In December
2001, FTA approved entry into preliminary engineering for this
project. A supplemental draft EIS is anticipated for completion
in the fall of 2002, with a final anticipated in the summer or
fall of 2003. Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has
appropriated $1,980,000 for this project. The Committee
recommends $4,000,000 in fiscal year 2003.
Northern Indiana Commuter Rail, South Shore Service.--The
Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District is continuing
a project of capital reinvestment. The capital reinvestment
plan will provide greater operational reliability and will
increase track capcity. The plan includes providing full
Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) coverage of the line and
installing the necessary signal and communication devices to
support this type of operation. The CTC equipment will be
state-of-the-art technology, utilizing microprocessor-based
systems to support the signal network. The signal network will
provide full reverse running capability on all tracks,
including two-track territories. For fiscal year 2003 the
Committee recommends $3,000,000 to continue to this plan.
Oceanside-Escondido, California, light rail extension
project.--The North County Transit District (NCTD) is planning
to convert an existing 22-mile freight rail corridor into a
diesel multiple unit (DMU) transit system running east from the
coastal city of Oceanside, through the cities of Vista, San
Marcos, and unincorporated portions of San Diego County, to the
city of Escondido. The alignment also includes 1.7 miles of new
right-of-way to serve the campus of California State University
San Marcos (CSUSM). The proposed project is located along the
State Route 78 corridor, which connects Interstate Highways 5
and 15, the principal east-west corridor in northern San Diego
County. The proposed project also includes the construction of
fifteen stations; four of these stations would be located at
existing transit centers. Average daily weekday boardings in
2015 are estimated at 15,100, with 8,600 daily new riders. An
environmental impact report (EIR) for the Oceanside-Escondido
rail project and an EIR for the CSUSM alignment were published
and certified in 1990 and 1991 respectively. A major investment
study was not required based on concurrence from FTA, FHWA, the
San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), Caltrans, the
city of San Marcos, and NCTD. Advanced planning for the
Oceanside-Escondido rail project, which resulted in 30 percent
design, was completed in December 1995. The environmental
assessment/subsequent environmental impact report (EA/SEIR) was
completed in early 1997. The North San Diego County Transit
Development Board certified the SEIR in March 1997. FTA issued
a finding of no significant impact in October 1997. FTA
approved the NCTD's request to enter into final design in
February 2000. The total capital cost for this project is
estimated at $332,300,000; of which NCTD is expected to seek
$152,100,000 in FTA new starts funds. Through fiscal year 2002,
Congress has appropriated $24,280,000 to this project. For
fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends $15,000,000 for
final design and construction.
Orange County, Centerline LRT project.--The Orange County
Transportation Authority (OCTA) is undertaking preliminary
engineering on an 18.7-mile rail corridor in central Orange
County between Santa Ana and Irvine. The proposed project will
connect major activity centers within the corridor, including
downtown Santa Ana, John Wayne Airport, El Toro Marine Base
(which is being converted to a civilian government center), and
several hospitals and regional shopping, employment, cultural
and entertainment centers. Additionally, the proposed project
would serve two major intermodal centers in Santa Ana and
Irvine that will provide connections to Metrolink commuter
trains, local buses, and Amtrak. OCTA completed a major
investment study for the corridor in June 1997, which led to
the selection of a rail/bus project consisting of a 28-mile
rail corridor and a 49 percent increase in bus service. In
February 2002, FTA approved entry into the preliminary
engineering. In response to input from citizens and local
elected officials, OCTA has revised the project. The proposed
project alignment has shortened from 30 miles to 18.7 miles and
will be an elevated LRT system, including 22 stations. OCTA
estimates that in 2025, the project will have 42,400 average
weekday boardings, with approximately 37,000 daily new riders.
Project costs are estimated at $1,889,000,000 (escalated
dollars), with $944,500,000 to be derived from the section 5309
new starts program. Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has
appropriated $7,450,000 for this project. The Committee
recommends $1,800,000 in fiscal year 2003.
Phoenix, Arizona, Central Phoenix/east valley corridor
project.--The Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA)
is proposed to implement a 25-mile at-grade light rail system
to connect the cities of Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa. As a first
step, the RPTA is undertaking preliminary engineering on a
20.3-mile segment from the Christ-Town Mall area, through
downtown Phoenix and downtown Tempe, to Mesa. The proposed
project would have 28 stations and serve major activity centers
including downtown Phoenix, the Sky Harbor airport, Papago Park
Center, and downtown Tempe. The RPTA completed the Central
Phoenix/East Valley (CP/EV) major investment study (MIS) in the
spring of 1998. In September 1998, FTA granted RPTA permission
to enter the preliminary engineering/environmental impact
statement (PE/EIS) phase on 13 miles of the corridor. FTA has
subsequently approved preliminary engineering on 20.3 miles of
the proposed system. The RPTA plans to complete NEPA process
and receive a record of decision in the fall of 2002, undertake
final design in 2003, and begin construction in 2004. The
proposed 20.3-mile LRT system is estimated to cost
approximately $1,181,000,000 (escalated), of which the RPTA
intends to seek $590,700,000 in new starts funding (50
percent). Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated
$33,670,000 for the project. For fiscal year 2003, the
Committee recommends $18,000,000 for preliminary engineering,
final design and construction.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, North Shore connector light rail
transit project.--The Port Authority of Allegheny County
(PAAC), proposes to construct a 1.6-mile light rail transit
system extension connecting the Golden Triangle and the North
Shore wholly within downtown Pittsburgh. The project would
extend the existing LRT service from the Gateway center LRT
station in Golden Triangle to the vicinity of the West End
Bridge on the North Shore via a tunnel below the Allegheny
River. On the North Shore, the project would be a mix of at-
grade and elevated alignment. The project would also include a
Convention Center connection, linking the existing Steel Plaza
LRT station and the Convention Center. The North Shore
connector LRT project would include the construction of four
new LRT stations and modifications of the Gateway Center and
Steel Plaza stations, and the acquisition of 10 new light rail
vehicles. The alternatives analysis was completed in early 1999
and the ``gateway LRT alternative'' was selected as the locally
preferred alternative for the North Shore connector LRT project
on August 16, 2000 by PAAC. FTA approval to initiate
preliminary engineering was granted in January 2001. PAAC is
currently developing the final EIS and anticipates FTA issuance
of a record of decision in 2002. Project capital costs are
estimated at $389,900,000 (escalated); the section 5309 new
starts share is estimated at $272,900,000 (70 percent). Revenue
service start-up is planned in 2007. Through fiscal year 2002,
Congress has appropriated $23,670,000 in section 5309 new
starts funds for this effort. For fiscal year 2003, the
Committee has provided $7,025,000 for preliminary engineering,
final design and construction. Due to the volume of projects
seeking an FFGA, the Committee cannot fully support those
projects that are seeking a high federal share from the new
starts account. The Committee strongly encourages Pittsburgh to
revisit the amount of local funding they plan to contribute to
the North Shore Connector LRT project, and find ways to
increase the local share.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, stage II light rail transit
reconstruction project.--The Port Authority of Allegheny County
(PAAC) has undertaken reconstruction of the 25-mile Pittsburgh
rail system to modern light rail standards. The stage I light
rail transit (LRT) project resulted in the reconstruction of a
13-mile system to light rail standards during the 1980s. The
stage II LRT project proposes reconstruction and double-
tracking of the remaining 12 miles of the system consisting of
the Overbrook, Library, and Drake trolley lines. The stage II
LRT project would reconstruct these three lines to modern LRT
standards, double track the single track segments, reopen the
closed Overbrook and Drake Lines, add approximately 2,400
spaces in park and ride lots, and purchase 28 new light rail
vehicles. During 1999, PAAC reconfigured its rail improvement
program to prioritize program needs against available funding.
The modified new starts project, the stage II LRT priority
program, would reconstruct the Overbrook Line and a portion of
the Library Line, and add the 2,400 park and ride spaces and 28
vehicles. The remainder of the stage II LRT program would be
built as funds become available. The estimated cost of the
priority program is $386,400,000. In January 2001, FTA issued
an FFGA for this project that would commit a total of
$100,200,000 in section 5309 new starts funding. Through fiscal
year 2002, a total of $41,530,000 has been appropriated. The
bill includes $26,250,000 for fiscal year 2003.
Portland, Oregon, Interstate MAX light rail transit
extension project.--The Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation
District of Oregon (Tri-Met) is planning a 5.8-mile, 10-station
extension of its light rail transit (LRT) system known locally
as the Metropolitan Area Express. The proposed Interstate
Metropolitan Area Express (MAX) line will extend existing LRT
service northward from the Rose Quarter Arena and the Oregon
Convention Center, to North Portland neighborhoods, medical
facilities, the Portland International Raceway, and the
Metropolitan Exposition Center. Riders will be able to transfer
between the Interstate MAX extension and the existing 33-mile
East/West MAX line at Rose Quarter station. This line will
complement regional land use plans by connecting established
residential, commercial, entertainment, and other major
activity centers, and providing a key transportation link in
the region's welfare to work programs. The LRT extension is
estimated to cost $350,000,000 (escalated dollars) and carry
18,100 average weekday boardings (8,400 new riders) by 2020. On
September 20, 2000, FTA and Tri-Met entered into an FFGA that
commits a total of $257,500,000 in section 5309 new starts
funds to the Interstate MAX project. This does not include
funding appropriated in prior years that was allocated to
Portland Metro for the 12-mile South-North light rail line
originally proposed for this corridor. Through fiscal year
2002, $76,750,000 has been appropriated for the Interstate MAX
extension. The Committee recommends $70,000,000 in fiscal year
2003.
Puget Sound, Washington, RTA Sounder commuter rail
projects.--The Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority
(Sound Transit) is proposing to implement two commuter rail
projects: Everett to Seattle and Lakewood to Tacoma.
For the Everett to Seattle commuter rail project, the
Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority is proposing to
implement peak-hour commuter rail service in the 35-mile
corridor linking Everett to Seattle, Washington. This service
will be part of the overall 82-mile Sounder commuter rail
corridor serving 14 stations from Lakewood, through the
downtowns of Tacoma and Seattle, and terminating in Everett,
Washington. Service from Tacoma to Seattle began in September
2000. The Everett-Seattle commuter rail segment would include
three multimodal stations that provide connections to a variety
of transportation services, including local and express bus
service, the Washington State ferry system (connecting cities
on the east and west sides of Puget Sound), the proposed Link
light rail system, and Amtrak. Twelve trains per day will serve
up to six stations. The draft environmental impact statement
for this project was issued in June 1999 and a final EIS was
published in November 1999. The record of decision was signed
in February 2000. Sound Transit will be seeking FTA
authorization to enter into final design in 2002. Sound Transit
estimates total project costs for the Everett-Seattle segment
of the Sounder system at $104 million in escalated dollars. The
federal new starts share is $24.9 million (24%). Because the
proposed new starts share is less than $25,000,000, the project
is exempt from the new starts criteria, and is thus not subject
to FTA's evaluations and ratings.
For the Lakewood to Tacoma commuter rail project, Central
Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority is proposing to
implement peak-hour commuter rail service for an eight-mile
segment linking Tacoma and Lakewood, Washington. This service
will be part of the overall 82-mile Sounder commuter rail
corridor serving 14 stations from Lakewood, through the
downtowns of Tacoma and Seattle, and terminating in Everett,
Washington. Sound Transit proposes to run eighteen trains per
day (including reverse commute service) to the cities along the
alignment, including Lakewood, South Tacoma, and Tacoma,
connecting to stations in Puyallup, Sumner, Auburn, Kent,
Tukwila, and Seattle. Two trains will run from Lakewood to
Everett. Service from Tacoma to Seattle began in September
2000. The Lakewood to Tacoma commuter rail service is scheduled
to begin in operations in 2004. The final EIS was published in
May 2000 and a record of decision was signed in June 2000.
Sound Transit will be seeking final design authorization for
this project in 2002. The total budget for this segment,
including vehicle purchase, track and signal improvements, and
station construction is $86,000,000 in escalated dollars. Sound
Transit is proposing a section 5309 new starts share of
$24,900,000 (29 percent). Because the proposed new starts share
is less than $25,000,000, the project is exempt from the new
starts criteria, and is thus not subject to FTA's evaluations
and ratings.
Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated
$79,320,000 to the 82-mile Sounder commuter rail system. Of
this total, $10,226,431 was made available to the Lakewood to
Tacoma commuter rail project and $10,877,131 was made available
to the Everett to Seattle commuter rail project. For fiscal
year 2003, the bill includes $5,000,000 for final design and
construction activities.
Raleigh, North Carolina, Triangle transit project, phase
I.--The phase I regional rail project is the first segment of a
three-phased regional transit plan for linking the three
counties--Wake, Durham, and Orange--in the Triangle Region of
North Carolina. In phase I, the Triangle Transit Authority
(TTA) intends to initiate regional rail service from Durham to
downtown Raleigh and from downtown Raleigh to North Raleigh.
TTA proposes to use diesel multiple unit (DMU) rail vehicles to
serve the 16 phase I stations. TTA has proposed that the phase
I regional rail project will use the existing North Carolina
railroad and CSX rail corridors to connect Duke University,
downtown Durham, Research Triangle Park, RDU Airport,
Morrisville, Cary, North Carolina State University, downtown
Raleigh, and North Raleigh. The proposed project is estimated
to serve 31,700 average weekday boardings by the year 2025. The
most recent capital cost estimate for Phase I is $754,800,000
(escalated dollars). The cost estimate includes final design,
acquisition of right-of-way (ROW) and rail vehicles, station
construction, park and ride lots, and construction of storage
and maintenance facilities. The ROW proposed to be used by TTA
for the project is shared among a number of operating
railroads, thus TTA is considering a number of track
realignments to accommodate inter-city and high-speed rail
improvements. In 1995, TTA completed the Triangle Fixed
Guideway Study. The Authority's Board of Trustees has adopted
the study's recommendations to put into place a regional rail
system, and resolutions of support have been received from all
major units of local government, chambers of commerce,
universities, and major employees in the Triangle area. The
Durham-Chapel Hill, Carrboro MPO and the Capital Area MPO have
each adopted the locally preferred alternative into their
fiscally constrained long-range plans and the phase I regional
rail project is included in their respective 1998-2004 TIPs and
North Carolina STIP. In January 1998, TTA initiated preliminary
engineering and the preparation of a draft environmental impact
statement (DEIS). The DEIS was released in May 2001. Selection
of the locally preferred alternative occurred in early 2002.
TTA anticipates completion of the final EIS in the summer of
2002 and a record of decision in the fall/winter 2002. TTA rail
alignment issues are currently being worked out with a number
of participating agencies, including the North Carolina
Railroad (NCRR), CSX Railroad, NCDOT Rail, and the Federal
Railroad Administration. TTA is expected to request an FFGA for
$377,300,000, or 50 percent, of the costs of this project.
Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated $55,550,000
in section 5309 new starts funds for this project. For fiscal
year 2003, the Committee recommends $5,000,000 for preliminary
engineering, final design and construction.
Salt Lake City, Utah, CBD to University LRT.--The Utah
Transit Authority (UTA) has implemented a 2.5-mile, four-
station light rail line in eastern Salt Lake City, from the
downtown area to Rice-Eccles Stadium on the University of Utah
campus. The line connects with the existing North/South line at
Main Street and travels east along 400 South and 500 South to
the stadium. Light rail vehicles operate on city streets and
property owned by Salt Lake City, the Utah Department of
Transportation, and the University. The CBD to University line
was scaled back from the originally proposed 10.9-mile West/
East line from the airport to the university. FTA issued an
FFGA for the CBD to University LRT project on August 17, 2000,
committing a total of $84,600,000 in section 5309 new starts
funds. This does not include $4,960,000 in fiscal year 2000 and
prior year funding, which brings the total amount of new starts
funding for this project to $89,560,000. To date, $20,800,000
has been appropriated. The bill provides $68,760,000 in fiscal
year 2003, completing the federal commitment to this project.
Salt Lake City, Utah, Medical Center extension.--The Utah
Transit Authority has proposed the Medical Center extension
project, a 1.5-mile light rail transit (LRT) system extending
from the University Line station at Rice-Eccles Stadium to the
University of Utah Health Science Complex (Medical Center). The
proposed Medical Center LRT line includes three stations:
Huntsman Center, Wasatch Drive, and Medical Center. The Medical
Center LRT will connect to the University Line LRT and the
existing North/South LRT corridor. Revenue operations are
scheduled to begin in 2004. FTA and UTA signed a full funding
grant agreement in August 2000 for the Central Business
District to University LRT project. The University LRT project
opened for service on December 15, 2001. In August 2001, FTA
approved the initiation of final design for the Medical Center
Extension. The total capital costs for this project are
anticipated to be $89,400,000, of which $53,600,000 is from the
section 5309 new starts funds. On May 17, 2002, FTA executed an
FFGA for this project. To date, Congress has appropriated
$2,970,000 for this project. For fiscal year 2003, the
Committee recommends $20,000,000.
Salt Lake City, Utah, North South light rail transit
extension project.--The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) has
completed construction of a 15-mile LRT line from downtown Salt
Lake City to the southern suburbs. The line opened for regular
weekday service on December 6, 1999. The system operates on
city streets downtown (2 miles) then follows a lightly used
railroad alignment owned by UTA to the suburban community of
Sandy (13 miles). The project is one component of the
Interstate 15 corridor improvement initiative, which includes
reconstruction of a parallel segment of I-15. Though original
ridership projections for the South LRT were estimated at
14,000 daily passengers in 2000 and 23,000 passengers in 2010,
current ridership has already exceeded 19,000 weekday
passengers. Total cost for this project was $312,490,000, of
which the FFGA committed $237,390,000 in new starts funding,
not including $6,600,000 in prior year funds that were provided
before the FFGA was issued. To date, a total of $243,280,000
has been appropriated to the project. For fiscal year 2003, the
bill includes $718,006 to fulfill the terms of the FFGA for
this project.
San Diego, California, Mission Valley East light rail
transit project.--The Metropolitan Transit Development Board
(MTDB) is constructing a 5.9-mile Mission Valley East Light
Rail Transit (LRT) extension of its Blue Line. The project
would extend the existing system from its current termini east
of Interstate 15 to the City of La Mesa, where it would connect
to the existing Orange Line near Baltimore Drive. The line
would serve four new stations at Grantville, San Diego State
University (SDSU), Alvarado Medical Center and 70th Street, as
well as two existing stations at Mission San Diego and
Grossmont Center. The proposed project would include elevated,
at-grade, and tunnel portions and provide two park-and-ride
lots and a new access road between Waring Road and the
Grantville Station. The project is expected to serve
approximately 10,800 average weekday boardings in the corridor
by 2015. The major investment study/draft environmental impact
statement (DEIS) was completed in May 1997. The locally
preferred alternative was selected by the Metropolitan Transit
Development Board in October 1997 with concurrence from the San
Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG, the local
metropolitan planning organization). FTA approval to enter the
preliminary engineering (PE) phase of project development was
granted in March 1998. Preliminary engineering was completed in
July 1998. This abbreviated schedule for PE was possible due to
the extensive public involvement and detailed analyses
undertaken during the planning stages, streamlining much of the
work that would traditionally be undertaken in the PE phase.
The final environmental impact statement (FEIS) was completed
and the record of decision (ROD) was issued in August 1998. FTA
approval to enter final design was granted in October 1998. The
total project capital cost is $431,000,000 (escalated dollars).
On June 22, 2000, FTA issued an FFGA committing a total of
$329,960,000 in section 5309 new starts funding for the
project. Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated
$112,720,000 in section 5309 new starts funds to this project.
The Committee recommends $65,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.
San Francisco, California, BART extension to the airport
project.--The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and San Mateo
County Transit District (SamTrans) are constructing an 8.7-
mile, 4-station, BART extension which proceeds southeast from
the Colma BART Station through the cities of Colma, South San
Francisco and San Bruno, and then continues south along the
Caltrain right-of-way to the city of Millbrae. Approximately,
1.5 miles north of the Millbrae Avenue intermodal terminal, an
east-west aerial ``wye'' (Y) stub will service the San
Francisco International Airport (SFIA). Originally, this
project was estimated to cost $1,054,000,000; however, total
capital costs have risen to $1,510,200,000 (escalated dollars)
due to higher than estimated construction costs. FTA's
commitment of $750,000,000 to the project remains unchanged.
Ridership is projected to be 73,600 trips per day by 2010,
including approximately 17,800 daily trips by air travelers and
airport employees. An alternatives analysis/draft environmental
impact statement (DEIS)/draft environmental impact report
(DEIR) was completed in 1992, resulting in a locally preferred
alternative. New alignments were later evaluated and, in April
1995, BART and SamTrans revised the preferred alternative. Due
to MTC and Congressional direction to evaluate lower cost
options, an aerial design option into the airport was evaluated
in a focused re-circulated DEIR/supplemental #2 DEIS. The final
EIS was completed in June 1996 and a record of decision (ROD)
was issued in August 1996. On June 30, 1997, FTA entered into
an FFGA for the BART/SFO Extension for $750,000,000 in Federal
section 5309 new start funds. Through fiscal year 2002,
$371,370,000 has been appropriated to the BART-SFO Extension.
For fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends $100,000,000.
San Francisco, Third Street Light Rail, phase II.--The San
Francisco Municipal Railway (Muni) has proposed implementing a
7.1-mile light rail line that will link the southeast section
of San Francisco to downtown San Francisco and Chinatown. Phase
I will run 5.4 miles from an existing Caltrain Bayshore Station
at the San Francisco County line to the south and connecting to
the existing LRT system in downtown San Francisco via Third
Street. This 5.4-mile segment is estimated to cost $557,900,000
and will be entirely funded through local sources. This phase
will be open in 2005. The second phase, known as the new
central subway, would extend the light rail line 1.7 miles into
a subway terminating in Chinatown. According to FTA, the
central subway phase is estimated to cost $763,900,000, with a
federal share of $432,000,000 (or 57 percent).
In 1996, FTA authorized preliminary engineering and
preparation of a draft environmental impact statement on the
third street corridor. In November 1997, MUNI began preliminary
engineering for phase 1 of the light rail alignment as well as
the Metro East maintenance facility. In June 1998, the San
Francisco Public Transportation Commission, which governs Muni,
designated a two-phase light rail project as the locally
preferred alternative. A record of decision was issued in April
1999. FTA approved the phase I's entrance into final design in
April 2000 and it is currently under construction. FTA approved
phase II's entrance into preliminary engineering in July 2002.
No federal funding has been provided to this project yet. For
fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends $1,750,000 for phase
II.
San Jose, California, Silicon Valley Rapid Transit
Corridor.--The Silicon Valley rapid transit corridor is a 16.3-
mile, seven station project that would extend BART south
through the cities of Fremont, Milipitas, San Jose, and would
terminate at a Caltrain commuter rail station in Santa Clara.
The majority of the alignment would be at or above grade,
although a portion would be underground (subway) in San Jose.
This project will connect to a variety of rail systems in the
region, including the Altamount Commuter Express service, the
Caltrain commuter rail service, the Capitol Corridor intercity
rail service, and Amtrak; Valley Transportation Authority
buses; and to the peoplemover at the San Jose airport. The
project is estimated to cost $3.7 billion, with a federal share
of $834,000,000 (22 percent). The project is estimated to cost
$3.7 billion, with a federal share of $834,000,000 (22
percent). The project is authorized by TEA21, section
3030(b)(19). In September 2002, FTA approved the project's
entry into preliminary engineering. For fiscal year 2003, the
Committee recomments $250,000 for preliminary engineering and
design activities.
San Juan, Puerto Rico, Tren Urbano project.--The Puerto
Rico Department of Transportation and Public Works (DTPW),
through its Highway and Transportation Authority (PRHTA), is
constructing a 10.7-mile (17.2 km) double-track guideway
between Bayamon Centro and the Sagrado Corazon area of Santurce
in San Juan. Approximately 40 percent of the alignment is at or
near grade. The remainder, aside from a short below-grade
segment in the Centro Medico area as well as an underground
segment through Rio Piedras, is generally elevated above
roadway rights-of-way. The project includes 16 stations and a
vehicle and right of way maintenance/storage facility. The
original capital cost for the project as specified in the FFGA
totals $1,250,000,000 (escalated dollars). The cost of the
project is now estimated at $1,653,600,000. The Tren Urbano
project is expected to carry 113,300 riders per day in 2010.
The Tren Urbano phase 1 environmental review process was
completed in November 1995 and included 14 stations. The
alignment design allowed for the future addition of two
stations, one in Rio Piedras and one in Hato Rey. A record of
decision (ROD) was issued in February 1996. In March 1996, FTA
entered into an FFGA for the Tren Urbano project providing a
Federal commitment of $307,400,000 in section 5309 new start
funds out of a total project cost of $1,250,000,000. The cost
of the project is now estimated at $1,653,000,000. Subsequent
to the FFGA, three environmental assessments were prepared
which revised the alignment at the Villa Nevarez station and
added new stations, in Rio Piedras at the University of Puerto
Rico, and in Hato Rey at Domenech Street. Findings of no
significant impact (FONSI) by the FTA were issued for these
three environmental assessments in November 1996, February
1997, and July 1997, respectively. An amendment to the FFGA
signed in July 1999, added the two stations identified in the
environmental process as well as 10 additional railcars. The
amendment also added $141,000,000 in section 5307 funds and
$259,900,000 in flexible funding. The new cost estimate for the
project encompasses the cost for extended project management
and construction management services, for advance design
development activities and for anticipated costs for claims and
contingencies. The local share funding for the project is being
provided by local revenues from the Puerto Rico Highway and
Transportation Authority (PRHTA). All operating costs, as well
as debt service on PRHTA bonds, are included as part of the
PRHTA annual budget, established in accordance with standard
PRHTA budget procedures. The project was also awarded a TIFIA
(Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of
1998) loan of $300,000,000. The project is well into the
construction phase of development. During 1996 and 1997, seven
design-build contracts were awarded for different segments of
the Tren Urbano phase 1 system. The systems test track and
turnkey contract, awarded in August 1996, provided for the
purchase of rolling stock, design and installation of all
systemwide components, construction of one of the civil
segments, and operation and maintenance of Tren Urbano phase 1
for an initial period of five years.
Contractors for this project have had problems meeting
construction milestones and quality standards. Significant
problems include tunnel misalignments, inadequate protection of
steel reinforcements, cracking in guideways, and Buy America
issues. Because of the serious, and unresolved, nature of these
problems, FTA withheld a total of $165,690,000 ($105,700,000 in
fiscal years 2000 and 2001 appropriations, $20,000,000 in
section 5307 urbanized formula funds in 2001, and $40,000,000
of flexible funds for fiscal year 2001) from the project until
PRTHA submitted a recovery plan. The recovery plan has been
submitted to FTA and in March 2002, FTA released the withheld
funds. The project is now expected to enter revenue service in
2003 or 2004, a slip from May 2002. Through fiscal year 2002,
Congress has appropriated $198,530,000 in section 5309 new
start funds for the project, with an additional $4,960,000
appropriated to the project but not included in the scope of
the FFGA. For fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends
$59,740,000.
St. Louis, Missouri, MetroLink St. Clair extension
project.--The Bi-State Development Agency (Bi-State) is
developing a 26-mile light rail line between downtown East St.
Louis, Illinois, and the Mid America Airport in St. Clair
County. The project will extend the MetroLink light rail
project that opened in July 1993. The adopted alignment
generally follows the former CSXT railroad right-of-way from
East St. Louis to Belleville, Illinois, serving the Belleville
Area College (now known as Southwest Illinois College), Scott
Air Force Base and Mid America Airport. The ``minimum operable
segment'' (MOS) includes 8 stations (seven with park and ride
lots), 20 new light rail vehicles, and a new light rail vehicle
maintenance facility in East St. Louis, Illinois. Revenue
service began on May 5, 2001. The MOS is estimated to cost
$339,200,000 (escalated dollars). On October 17, 1996, Bi-State
and FTA entered into an FFGA that commits $243,930,000 in
section 5309 new start funds contributing to the total
estimated cost of $339,200,000 (escalated dollars). An
additional $8,500,000 in section 5309 new start funds were
previously appropriated but not included in the FFGA scope.
Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated
$249,040,000 in section 5309 new start funds for the FFGA
covered minimum operable segment portion of the project. For
fiscal year 2003, the bill provides $3,368,422.
Seattle, Sound Transit Central Link Light Rail.-- The
Committee has given special attention since January, 2001 to
the Central Link Light Rail project in the Seattle region.
Testimony from Sound Transit leadership and the Federal Transit
Administration has assisted the Committee in evaluating the
project and the management of it by its sponsor and by the FTA.
The Inspector General issued an interim report on the project
in April, 2001 which raised a number of issues to be addressed
by Sound Transit and the FTA. The Committee takes note of the
progress made in addressing these issues. Sound Transit's Board
of Directors adopted a new initial segment in November, 2001.
This 14-mile line will run from Downtown Seattle to just north
of Sea-Tac Airport. The FTA has given its approval to the
commencement of final design on this segment. In anticipation
of further developments on this project, the Committee has
asked the Inspector General to update his report on it. The
Committee will evaluate any future request for funding and/or
review of a proposed Full Funding Grant Agreement in light of
the IG report and additional information from the grantee and
the Administration.

Job Access and Reverse Commute Grants

Limitation on
Appropriation obligations (Trust
(General fund) fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002. $25,000,000 ($100,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2003 30,000,000 (120,000,000)
Recommended in the bill......... 30,000,000 (120,000,000)
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year +5,000,000 (+20,000,000)
2002...........................
Budget request, fiscal year .................. ..................
2003...........................

Section 3037 of TEA-21 established the job access and
reverse commute (JARC) grants program. The program is to make
competitive grants to qualifying metropolitan planning
organizations, local governmental authorities, agencies, and
non-profit organizations. Grants may not be used for planning
or coordination activities. No more than $10,000,000 may be
provided for reverse commute grants.
For fiscal year 2003, the program is funded at a total
level of $150,000,000, with $30,000,000 derived from the
general fund and $120,000,000 derived from the mass transit
account of the highway trust fund. These funds are guaranteed
under the transit funding category.
The Committee recommends the following allocations of job
access and reverse commute grant program funds in fiscal year
2003:

Ajo to Phoenix, Arizona, rural express bus service...... $200,000
City of Phoenix, Arizona, Valley Metro.................. 1,000,000
Southwest Transit, Arizona, bus route 131............... 300,000
AC Transit, California--CalWORKS Welfare to Work........ 3,000,000
County of Santa Clara, California, Guaranteed Ride Home
Program............................................. 650,000
East Palo Alto, California, shuttle service............. 1,000,000
Los Angeles County, California, MTA..................... 2,000,000
Sacramento, California.................................. 3,000,000
State of Colorado....................................... 1,524,471
State of Connecticut.................................... 3,500,000
Georgetown Metro Connection, Washington, DC............. 1,100,000
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.......... 2,500,000
State of Delaware....................................... 750,000
Hillsborough, Florida (HART)............................ 700,000
Key West, Florida....................................... 1,000,000
Jacksonville, Florida, ChoiceRide....................... 2,500,000
Macon-Bibb County Transit Authority, Georgia, reverse
commute program..................................... 1,000,000
DuPage County, Illinois, coordinated paratransit program 500,000
State of Illinois, ways to work......................... 400,000
Ways-to-Work--Illinois and Missouri..................... 2,000,000
Rock Island County Mass Transit District, Illinois,
CityLINK............................................ 360,000
IndyGo Service, Indiana................................. 1,000,000
Mid America Regional Council, Kansas.................... 1,000,000
Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority, Kansas........... 1,600,000
Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City,
Kansas.............................................. 1,000,000
Community Transit Association of America,............... 1,000,000
Northern Tier Dial-A-Ride, Massachusetts................ 400,000
Transportation Services of Northern Berkshire,
Massachusetts....................................... 400,000
State of Maryland....................................... 5,000,000
Flint, Michigan, Mass Transportation Authority.......... 1,000,000
Grand Rapids/Kent County, Michigan...................... 1,200,000
Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota......................... 1,000,000
Metropolitan Kansas City Job Access Partnership,
Missouri............................................ 1,000,000
St. Louis, Missouri, West Gateway Coordinating Council
(Metrolink)......................................... 3,000,000
Community Transportation Association of America's
Joblinks Employment Transportation Initiative, North
Carolina............................................ 2,000,000
Wake County, North Carolina, Coordinated Transportation
System.............................................. 1,000,000
State of New Jersey..................................... 5,000,000
Binghamton, New York, Broome County Transit............. 250,000
Central New York Regional Transportation Authority...... 500,000
Columbia County, New York............................... 100,000
Long Island, New York (MTA)............................. 500,000
State of New York....................................... 1,000,000
Orange County, New York................................. 100,000
Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority, New
York................................................ 600,000
Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit--Tompkins County, New
York................................................ 300,000
Central Ohio Transit Authority.......................... 600,000
Toledo, Ohio............................................ 500,000
Oklahoma Transit Association............................ 5,000,000
Portland, Oregon........................................ 2,800,000
Salem Area Transit, Oregon.............................. 1,000,000
Port Authority of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania........ 4,000,000
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
(SEPTA), Pennsylvania............................... 6,000,000
Rhode Island Public Transit............................. 2,000,000
Chattanooga, Tennessee.................................. 500,000
Abilene, Texas, (Citylink).............................. 200,000
Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Reverse
Commute Transit Exchange Center, Texas.............. 2,000,000
Lubbock, Texas, (Citibus)............................... 230,000
Galveston, Texas........................................ 600,000
San Antonio, Texas, VIA Metropolitan Transit............ 1,250,000
Corpus Christi, Texas................................... 1,700,000
Texas, Just Transportation Alliance..................... 267,210
City of Charlottesville, Virginia....................... 375,000
Fairfax County, Virginia................................ 1,600,000
Washington State, WorkFirst Initiative.................. 6,000,000
Yakima, Washington, Ways to Work........................ 500,000
Community Transit Association of the Northwest,
Washington.......................................... 150,000
State of Wisconsin...................................... 5,200,000

Community Transit Association of America.--The Committee
provides $1,000,000 for the Community Transit Association of
America continuation of activities and programs to be used for
demonstration projects, technical assistance for demonstration
projects and technical assistance to small and urban and rural
community providers. This assistance may include a toll-free
hotline, on site technical assistance and training, preparation
of technical manuals and related assistance.

SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (the
corporation) is a wholly owned Government corporation
established by the Saint Lawrence Seaway Act of May 13, 1954.
The corporation is responsible for the operation, maintenance,
and development of the United States portion of the Saint
Lawrence Seaway between Montreal and Lake Erie, including the
two Seaway locks located in Massena, NY and vessel traffic
control in areas of the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario.
The mission of the corporation is to serve the United States
intermodal and international transportation system by improving
the operation and maintenance of a safe, secure, reliable,
efficient, and environmentally responsible deep-draft waterway.
The corporation's major priorities include: safety,
reliability, environmental stewardship, trade development,
management accountability, and bi-national collaboration with
its Canadian counterpart.
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 in previous years. 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, secure, 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--derived primarily from prior-years revenues
received in excess of costs, unused borrowing authority, and
miscellaneous income--for emergency purposes.

Operations and Maintenance

(HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002..................... $13,345,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003 \1\................ 14,086,000
Recommended in the bill \2\ \3\..................... 15,486,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002................. +2,141,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003................ +1,400,000
\1\ Does not reflect $702,000 in CSRS/FEHB accruals.
\2\ Does not reflect reduction of $11,000 pursuant to Section 349 of
Public Law 107-87.
\3\ Does not reflect reduction of $10,000 pursuant to Section 1106 of
Public Law 107-117.

The Committee recommends a total appropriation of
$15,486,000 to fund the operations and maintenance of the
corporation. Appropriations from the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund and revenues from non-federal sources finance the
operation and maintenance of the Seaway for which the
corporation is responsible. The appropriation recommended in
the bill provides sufficient funding for the corporation's
capital priorities as well as for the recommendations of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' survey and evaluation of the
corporation's lock and maintenance practices. Furthermore, the
amount recommended in the bill includes funds for new and
revised security measures that are based upon the results of an
independent security assessment. The following summarizes the
adjustments that were made to the budget request:

Additional security funds............................... +$1,431,000
Deny FECA administrative costs.......................... -31,300

Security.--Following the events of September 11, 2001, the
vulnerability of the Seaway's infrastructure became a
significant concern. Given the economic value and strategic
importance of the Seaway, the corporation took immediate steps
to enhance security and assess future needs. The corporation
conducted an independent security risk assessment to determine
the extent of enhancements required to secure the waterway's
facilities with minimal impact upon operations and commerce.
The Committee applauds the corporation's efforts to improve the
security of its infrastructure without impeding trade and
vessel operations, and has provided an additional $1,431,000
for these activities. The corporation's efforts to mitigate the
additional costs associated with security enhancements by
seeking support from local entities that use common access
roads and land, such as the New York State Power Authority and
New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic
Preservation, is recognized. Further efforts to obtain support
and fiscal contributions from such organizations are
encouraged.
In addition to infrastructure enhancements, the
corporation, in conjunction with its Canadian counterpart,
established a protocol for addressing high risk inbound
vessels. These efforts include early identification and a
comprehensive inspection regimen coordinated between both the
United States and Canadian Coast Guards. The efforts of the
corporation are consistent with the U.S. Coast Guard's
intention of identifying high interest vessels well before they
enter U.S. waters. The Committee applauds these efforts and
encourages the corporation to continue the development of this
protocol with assistance from the U.S. Coast Guard and
Transportation Security Administration.
FECA administrative costs.--The Committee has denied
funding proposed in the budget for FECA administrative costs.
This is consistent with actions taken DOT-wide.

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. RSPA provides
research, analytical and technical support for transportation
programs through headquarters offices and the Volpe National
Transportation Systems Center.

Summary of Fiscal Year 2003 Program

The Committee recommends $99,574,000 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 an increase of $1,345,000 from
the fiscal year 2002 enacted level, excluding supplemental
amounts. The following table summarizes fiscal year 2002
program levels, the fiscal year 2003 program requests, and the
Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 Fiscal year 2003 Recommended in
Program enacted \1\ estimate the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research and special programs.......................... \2\ $39,779,000 \3\ $44,378,000 $40,677,000
Hazardous materials user fee........................... ................. -5,987,000 .................
Pipeline safety........................................ 58,250,000 \4\63,857,000 58,697,000
Emergency preparedness grants.......................... 200,000 200,000 200,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................ 98,229,000 102,448,000 99,574,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $348,000 pursuant to section 349 of Public Law 107-87 and section 1106 of
Public Law 107-117.
\2\ Includes $2,500,000 in fiscal year 2002 emergency supplemental funding.
\3\ Does not reflect accruals of $1,316,000 in FY 2003 for the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) and the
Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB).
\4\ Does not reflect accruals of $653,000 in FY 2003 for the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) and the
Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB).

Research and Special Programs

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 \1\ \2\............. $39,779,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003 \3\................ 44,378,000
Recommended in the bill............................. 40,677,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002................. +898,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003................ -3,700,000
\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $210,000 pursuant to section 349 of
Public Law 107-87 and section 1106 of Public Law 107-117.
\2\ Includes $2,500,000 in fiscal year 2002 emergency supplemental
funding.
\3\ Does not reflect accruals of $1,316,000 for the Civil Service
Retirement System (CSRS) and the Federal Employee Health Benefits
(FEHB).

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 for
RSPA's programs is also provided under this appropriation. The
total recommended program level for research and special
programs is $40,677,000. Budget and staffing data for this
appropriation are as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 Fiscal year 2003 Recommended in
enacted estimate the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous materials safety............................. $21,217,000 $23,079,000 $22,998,000
(Positions).................................... (135) (137) (137)
Hazardous materials safety user fees................... ................. -5,987,000 .................
Research and technology................................ $2,784,000 2,854,000 2,846,000
(Positions)........................................ (9) (9) (9)
Emergency transportation............................... 4,397,000 2,058,000 1,951,000
(Positions)........................................ (9) (10) (9)
Program support........................................ 11,381,000 16,387,000 12,882,000
(Positions)........................................ (53) (67) (57)
--------------------------------------------------------
Total, Research and Special Programs............. 39,779,000 38,391,000 40,677,000
(Positions)........................................ (206) (223) (212)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Committee recommends the following changes to the
budget request:

Reduce funding for reimbursement of prior year -$265,000
budget decisions...................................
Deny funding for one emergency transportation -100,000
detailee position..................................
Deny ten positions for program support.............. -1,093,000
Reduce funding for information technology -2,239,000
infrastructure.....................................
Deny FECA administrative costs...................... -3,200

Prior year funding decisions.--The budget included $265,000
for reimbursement of salary and administrative funding that
Congress did not provide in the fiscal year 2002 appropriations
bill. The Committee has made its decisions regarding fiscal
year 2002 funding levels, and therefore deletes funding for
this purpose.
New positions.--The budget included a request for two new
personnel for the office of hazardous materials. This is to
compensate for the two personnel provided for this purpose in
2002 that were transferred to other hazardous materials safety
duties in the wake of September 11th. These new employees are
part of the strategic hazardous materials incident reduction
team. The Committee has provided funding associated with these
new positions.
The budget also requested a total of fourteen new positions
for RSPA's information management program for information
technology (IT) infrastructure (7), administrative support (3),
and financial management (4). The Committee has provided a
total of four of these new positions, two of which are
accounting positions to establish proper accounting procedures.
The Committee has also provided funding for one security
officer and for one network administrator/computer analyst.
Although the Committee remains concerned that RSPA's
information technology strategic plan did not adequately
address a definitive order of infrastructure upgrades or a
timeline of development for other large improvements,
subsequent meetings and discussions indicate a need for some
additional staff in the IT arena. The Government Information
Security Reform Act requires RSPA to employ one security
officer to develop, implement, and maintain a security program
that assesses risk and maintains security.
Emergency transportation detailee.--RSPA requested $100,000
to pay for an existing detailee position from the Department of
Defense to serve as a liaison officer in the office of
emergency transportation. Because this position is filled by an
employee of the Department of Defense, not RSPA, and detailees
are customarily paid for by the sponsoring department, the
Committee deletes funding for this purpose.
Research and technology.--The Committee has funded the
request of $1,560,000 for research and development planning and
transportation infrastructure assurance. The Committee
encourages RSPA to continue to evaluate and streamline their
research programs to eliminate duplicative programs within RSPA
and among other modal administrations in DOT.
In addition, Section 352(b) of the Department of
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY
2002 directs DOT, in consultation with the Comptroller General,
to conduct a study of the effects on public health and safety,
the environment, and the economy association with the
transportation of hazardous and radioactive materials. The
Committee is disturbed to learn that DOT did not consult with
the Comptroller General on the report that it submitted to the
Congress. The GAO only received a draft report for review one
week prior to its scheduled delivery date to Congress, although
the GAO offered several times since January 2002 to consult
with DOT on the scope and design of the study. DOT's report
does not fully address all of the matters requested by the
Committee and provides only a description of the transportation
systems in the United States. The Committee understands that
the issues to be studied are complex in nature, but it is clear
that RSPA performed very little analysis in what it provided to
Congress.
Therefore, the Committee directs the General Accounting
Office (GAO) to provide a report by February 1, 2003,
evaluating RSPA's research program. The report should address
RSPA's effectiveness in coordinating with other modes of
transport, including the avoidance of duplication; contain a
description of how RSPA develops its research agenda and
evaluates the outcomes; and include an overview of current RSPA
projects, including challenges and successes of the program.
The Committee also directs the GAO to provide a separate
report by February 1, 2003, on RSPA's transportation
infrastructure assurance research initiative begun in fiscal
year 2001. The report should address the status of the program,
key vulnerabilities (both safety and security) of national
transportation infrastructure, and a description of how the
events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent establishment
of the Transportation Security Administration, may have changed
the initial objectives of the program.
Information technology infrastructure.--The Committee has
reduced funding by $2,239,000 from the request for computer
infrastructure, for a total funding level of $1,500,000. The
Committee notes that the funding provided is a significant
increase from the $123,000 made available the previous year.
The Committee directs RSPA to develop a spending plan by
December 31, 2002, that details exactly how these funds will be
spent and how the plan best addresses RSPA's needs. The
Committee directs RSPA to focus its information technology
investment funding on safety and security related mission
critical areas, such as pipeline safety and hazardous materials
areas, as well as on addressing the internal and external
computer-related security threats identified by the March 2002
security posture assessment report. Further, the Committee
directs RSPA to provide a detailed report to both the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations on the status of the
infrastructure upgrades, including an itemization of spent
resources and the sequence in which RSPA addresses security and
infrastructure needs, by March 15, 2003.
FECA administrative costs.--The Committee has reduced
funding by $3,200 from the budget request for workers
compensation administrative costs as explained in this report.
User fees.--The Committee disagrees with the budget request
to begin funding the hazardous materials safety program from
user fees. On February 14, 2001, RSPA finalized a rule that
changed the agency's registration and fee assessment program
for persons who transport, or offer for transport, certain
categories and quantities of hazardous materials. The rule
increased the number of persons required to register and
increased the annual registration fee for shippers and carriers
which are not small businesses. These fees have raised
additional funds to enhance support for the national hazardous
materials emergency preparedness grant program.
To begin funding the hazardous materials safety program
would require RSPA to initiate a rule to collect $5,987,000 in
user fees in fiscal year 2003 and fully fund the office of
hazardous materials beginning in fiscal year 2004. These fees
would be above those already in place for emergency
preparedness grants. Currently, this new fee is not authorized.
Further, the Committee is concerned about raising fees twice on
a small segment of the transportation industry. While the
Committee supported fees to increase funding available for
emergency preparedness training and grants, it is unwilling to
have the same segment of the industry fully fund the Federal
Government's entire hazardous materials safety program.

Pipeline Safety

(Oil spill
(Pipeline liability Total
safety fund) trust fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year $50,386,000 $7,864,000 $58,250,000
2002 \1\.....................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 56,385,000 7,472,000 63,875,000
2003 \2\.....................
Recommended in the bill....... 51,225,000 7,472,000 58,697,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year +839,000 -392,000 +447,000
2002.........................
Budget estimate, fiscal -5,160,000 ............ -5,160,000
year 2003....................
\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $138,000 pursuant to section 349 of
Public Law 107-87 and section 1106 of Public Law 107-117.
\2\ Does not reflect accruals of $653,000 for the Civil Service
Retirement System (CSRS) and the Federal Employee Health Benefits
(FEHB).

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 $58,697,000 to continue pipeline safety
operations, research and development, and state grants-in-aid
in fiscal year 2003. This is a 1 percent increase from the
level enacted for fiscal year 2002. The bill specifies that of
the total appropriation, $7,472,000 shall be derived from the
oil spill liability trust fund and $51,225,000 shall be from
the pipeline safety fund.
The Committee recommends the following changes to the
budget request:

Reduce funding reimbursement of prior year funding -$286,000
decisions..........................................
Deny twelve new positions........................... -1,152,000
Reduce requested research and development increase.. -4,008,000
Deny FECA administrative costs...................... -15,000

Prior year funding decisions.--The budget included $286,000
for reimbursement of salary and administrative funding that
Congress did not provide in the fiscal year 2002 appropriations
bill. The Committee has made its decisions regarding fiscal
year 2002, and therefore deletes funding for this purpose.
New positions.--The budget included a request for fifteen
new pipeline safety-related positions, eight of which are
specialists/inspectors to support the integrity management
program, two are integrity support technical specialists and
five are community assistance positions. The Committee notes
that of the twenty-six pipeline safety related positions
provided in fiscal year 2002, just over half have been filled.
Therefore, the Committee has provided a total of three new
positions--two specialists/inspectors to support the integrity
assessment validation and enforcement and security preparedness
work and one integrity support technical specialist.
Research and development.--RSPA requested a total increase
of $4,008,000 over the fiscal year 2002 enacted level for
research and development programs. This increase is due to the
transfer of the Department of Energy's pipeline infrastructure
research and development program into RSPA. The DOE's research
program differs significantly from RSPA's as it focuses on
pipeline materials and structure research. The Committee does
not support this transfer and deletes funding for this purpose.
Further, the Committee questions the dramatic increase in
the R&D budget since fiscal year 2001, noting that the 2003
request would represent a 70 percent increase in the R&D budget
in a span of two years. The Committee is concerned that these
increases will not be effectively managed and utilized. The GAO
is directed to provide a report to both the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations by January 15, 2003, on the
effectiveness of RSPA's pipeline safety research and
development program.
FECA administrative costs.--The Committee has reduced
funding by $15,000 from the budget request for workers
compensation administrative costs as explained in this report.

Emergency Preparedness Grants

(EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002..................... $200,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003.................... 200,000
Recommended in the bill............................. 200,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002................. ..................
Budget request, fiscal year 2003................ ..................

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 as requested,
for activities related to emergency response training
curriculum development and updates, as authorized by section
117(A)(i)(3)(B) of HMTUSA. The Committee has provided an
obligation limitation of $14,300,000 for the emergency
preparedness grant program.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Salaries and Expenses

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 \1\................... $51,914,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003...................... 57,421,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 57,421,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002................... +5,507,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003.................. ................
\1\ Includes $1,300,000 in supplemental emergency appropriations.

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 Committee recommendation provides $57,421,000 for
activities of the Office of Inspector General, an increase of
$5,507,000 (10.6 percent) above the fiscal year 2002 enacted
level and the same as the administration's request. The
Committee continues to value highly the work of the Office of
Inspector General in oversight of departmental programs and
activities. In addition, the OIG will receive $7,624,000 from
other agencies in this bill, as noted below:

Federal Highway Administration........................ $3,524,000
Federal Transit Administration........................ 2,000,000
Federal Aviation Administration....................... 2,000,000
National Transportation Safety Board.................. 100,000

The OIG's total funding of $65,045,000 represents an
increase of 9.2 percent above the fiscal year 2002 level.
Backlog in criminal investigative cases.--Since the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, approximately 45
percent of OIG's criminal investigative resources have been
diverted from other transportation investigations to perform
aviation security requirements. As a result, important fraud
investigations have suffered, particularly in the aviation
safety, highway, and transit program areas. Since the increased
funding provided in TEA-21 and AIR-21, the OIG has seen a sharp
spike in investigations of contract and grant fraud. For
example, in fiscal year 2001, OIG fraud investigations resulted
in 72 indictments and 51 convictions. This was an increase of
33 percent in indictments and 42 percent in convictions over
fiscal year 2000. While the additional resources for security
activities has been important, over 250 investigations are
currently either in a suspended status, not yet assigned, or
have been delayed, impacting the statute of limitations in many
cases. There are over 90 backlogged criminal contract and grant
fraud cases involving bribery, collusion, kickback, or criminal
conspiracy. The Committee believes it is crucial for the OIG to
begin address these backlogged cases without further delay.
Support for homeland security agencies and activities.--The
Committee understands that OIG audit and investigative costs in
support of those agencies proposed for transfer to the
Department of Homeland Security may be proposed for transfer to
the new OIG for the Department of Homeland Security. The
Committee notes that the recent workload of the Department of
Transportation OIG for the Coast Guard and TSA is not
indicative of a reasonable recurring level of effort. The high
level of resources in these program areas is due to special
Congressional requests in the area of Coast Guard search and
rescue and the need for additional oversight during the start-
up period for TSA. A large portion of these resources have been
diverted from other critical audit and investigative
activities, and cannot simply be transferred to a new
department without serious impact on DOT operations. The
Committee expects the administration to consider long-term
resource trends, as well as the need to maintain a viable audit
and investigative presence in DOT, as a part of internal
planning for the new homeland security department.
Disadvantaged business enterprise program audit, New
Orleans area, LA.--The Committee is aware of, and strongly
concerned about, disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) abuses
that may have occurred under the administration of current DOT
DBE programs at the Louis Armstrong International Airport, the
New Orleans Regional Transit Authority, and the Orleans Levee
Board. In August 2001, the Committee requested a thorough
report on all instances in which federal DBE regulations may
have been violated. The Committee requested that the IG
specifically examine all firms certified under these programs
and report any specific cases of improper certification. The
Committee has not received the IG report, and requests its
submission no later than June 1, 2003.
Unfair business practices.--The bill maintains language
first enacted in fiscal year 2000 which authorizes the OIG to
investigate allegations of fraud and unfair or deceptive
practices and unfair methods of competition by air carriers and
ticket agents.
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 of, or modification to, any major
acquisition project or grant, or which recommends significant
budgetary savings. The OIG is also directed to withhold from
public distribution for a period of 15 days any final audit or
investigative report which was requested by the House or Senate
Committees on Appropriations.

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

Salaries and Expenses

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 \1\................... $18,457,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003 \2\.................. 19,459,000
Recommended in the bill \3\........................... 19,450,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002................... +993,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003.................. -9,000
\1\ Does not reflect a reduction of $5,000 pursuant to section 349 of
Public Law 107-87 and a reduction of $4,000 pursuant to section 1106
of Public Law 107-117. Of this total, $950,000 is offset through the
collection of user fees.
\2\ Does not reflect accruals of $1,192,200 for the for the Civil
Service Retirement System (CSRS) and the Federal Employee Health
Benefits (FEHB) in the FY 2003 request.
\3\ Assumes collection of $1,000,000 in user fees, to offset the
appropriation as the fees are collected throughout the fiscal year.

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 transferred
certain other motor carrier functions to the Federal Highway
Administration (now under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
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
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 made by the
Staggers Rail Act of 1980.
The Committee recommends a total appropriation of
$19,450,000. Included in the recommended amount is an estimated
$1,000,000 in fees, which will offset the appropriated funding.
At this funding level, the Board will be able to accommodate
145 full-time equivalent positions.
The Committee recommends the following changes to the
budget request:

Deny FECA administrative costs....................... -$9,100

FECA administrative costs.--The Committee has reduced
funding by $9,100 from the budget request for workers
compensation administrative costs as explained elsewhere in
this report.
User fees.--Current statutory authority, under the
Independent Offices Appropriations Act (31 U.S.C. 9701), grants
the Board the authority to collect user fees. The Committee
agrees with the budget request that $1,000,000 in user fees is
reasonable.
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. This language,
continued from last year, simplifies the tracking of the
collections and provides the Board with more flexibility in
spending its appropriated funds.
Union Pacific/Southern Pacific merger.--On December 12,
1997, the Board granted a joint request of Union Pacific
Railroad Company and the City of Wichita and Sedgwick County,
KS (Wichita/Sedgwick) to toll the 18-month mitigation study
pending in Finance Docket No. 32760. The decision indicated
that at such time as the parties reach agreement or discontinue
negotiations, the Board would take appropriate action.
By petition filed June 26, 1998, Wichita/Sedgwick and UP/SP
indicated that they had entered into an agreement, and jointly
petitioned the Board to impose the agreement as a condition of
the Board's approval of the UP/SP merger. By decision dated
July 8, 1998, the Board agreed and imposed the agreement as a
condition to the UP/SP merger. The terms of the negotiated
agreement remain in effect. If UP/SP or any of its divisions or
subsidiaries materially changes or is unable to achieve the
assumptions on which the Board based its final environmental
mitigation measures, then the Board should reopen Finance
Docket 32760 if requested by interested parties, and prescribe
additional mitigation properly reflecting these changes if
shown to be appropriate.

TITLE II

RELATED AGENCIES

ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS

COMPLIANCE BOARD

Salaries and Expenses

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002..................... $5,015,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ¹.................. 5,194,000
Recommended in the bill ²........................... 5,194,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002................. +179,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003................ ..................
\1\ Does not reflect $146,000 in CSRS/FEHB accruals.
\2\ Does not reflect reduction of $146,000 pursuant to Section 301 of
Public Law 106-113.

A total of $5,194,000 has been allocated for the operations
of the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance
Board, the funding level requested by the administration. The
recommended appropriation total provides adequate funding to
support two additional full time equivalent (FTE) positions as
requested for a total of 32 FTEs.
The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance
Board (the Access Board) is the lead Federal Agency promoting
accessibility for all handicapped persons. The Access Board was
reauthorized in the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992,
Public Law 102-569. Under this authorization, the Access
Board's functions are to ensure compliance with the
Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, and to develop guidelines
for and technical assistance to individuals and entities with
rights or duties under titles II and III of the American with
Disabilities Act. The Access Board establishes minimum
accessibility guidelines and requirements for public
accommodations and commercial facilities, transit facilities
and vehicles, state and local government facilities, children's
environments, and recreational facilities. The Access Board
also provides technical assistance to Government agencies,
public and private organizations, individuals, and businesses
on the removal of accessibility barriers.
Electronic Resources.--Through the use of Internet and
other electronic media, the Access Board has significantly
expanded the dissemination of accessibility guidelines. The
Committee commends this efficient use of electronic resources
and encourages such innovative efforts to further promote
accessibility for all persons with unique and special needs.
FECA administrative costs.--No funding has been provided
for FECA administrative costs, as discussed earlier in the
report.

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

Salaries and Expenses

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 \1\................. $68,650,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003 \2\................ 70,480,000
Recommended in the bill............................. 71,270,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2002................. +2,620,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2003................ +790,000
\1\ Includes $650,000 in supplemental emergency appropriations.
\2\ Excludes $3,400,000 in CSRS/FEHB accruals.

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 $71,270,000 for
salaries and expenses, an increase of $2,620,000 (4 percent)
above the fiscal year 2002 enacted level and $790,000 above the
request. The additional funds shall be used to cover the safety
academy's rental costs and necessary academy staffing in 2003.
Of the funds provided, up to $2,000 may be used for official
reception and representation expenses as requested. The
Committee expects to be advised if the Board proposes to
deviate in any way from the staff year allocations or by more
than five percent from the funding allocations described in the
budget justifications.
FECA administrative costs.--No funding has been provided
for FECA administrative costs, as discussed earlier in the
report.

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 does not approve the requested deletion of
the following sections, all of which were contained in the
fiscal year 2002 Department of Transportation and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act (section numbers may be different):
Section 320 prohibits funds in this Act unless the
Secretary of Transportation notifies the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations not less than three full business
days before any discretionary grant award, letter of intent, or
full funding grant agreement totaling $1,000,000 or more is
announced by the department or its modal administrations.
Section 321 prohibits funds for design or construction of a
light rail system in Houston, Texas, without meeting the
conditions listed.
Section 322 prohibits funds in this Act for engineering
work related to an additional runway at New Orleans
International Airport.
Section 326 prohibits funds for the Office of the Secretary
of Transportation to approve assessments or reimbursable
agreements pertaining to funds appropriated to the modal
administrations in this Act, unless such assessments or
agreements have completed the normal reprogramming process for
Congressional notification.
The Committee included the following general provisions as
requested with modifications:
Section 304 prohibits funds in this Act for salaries and
expenses of more than 107 political and Presidential appointees
in the Department of Transportation and includes a provision
that prohibits political and Presidential personnel to be
assigned on temporary detail outside the Department of
Transportation or any independent agency funded in this Act.
Section 315 prohibits funds to compensate in excess of 350
technical staff years under the federally funded research and
development center contract between the Federal Aviation
Administration and the Center for Advanced Aviation Systems
Development.
Section 323 prohibits funds in this Act to be used to adopt
guidelines or regulations requiring airport sponsors to provide
the Federal Aviation Administration or the Transportation
Security Administration ``without cost'' buildings, maintenance
or space for FAA or TSA services, including air traffic
control, air navigation, aviation security or weather
reporting. The prohibition does not apply to negotiations
between FAA or TSA and airport sponsors concerning ``below
market'' rates for such services or to grant assurances that
require airport sponsors to provide land without cost to the
FAA for air traffic control facilities or to the TSA for
security checkpoints.
Section 324 amends the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century (112 Stat. 272) to increase the percentage take-
down for FHWA administrative funds.
Section 325 allows States to use funds provided under
section 402 of title 23, U.S.C., to produce and place highway
safety public service messages.
The Committee included the following new provisions:
Section 327 prohibits funds in this Act from being used to
issue, implement, or enforce a regulation that diminishes or
revokes an exemption authorized under 345 of the National
Highway System Designation Act of 1995.
Section 328 requires the Secretary of Transportation to
make a grant from the Local Rail Freight Assistance program in
the amount of $690,287 to the State of Iowa for a rail
infrastructure rehabilitation project on the Iowa Northern
Railway.
Section 329 requires payments into the Department of
Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund for fiscal
year 2003 to be from funds available in the Coast Guard
Operating Expenses account.
Section 330 reallocates funds for the Wilmington, Delaware,
downtown transit connector and for the Wilmington downtown
corridor project.
Section 331 amends section 1602 of the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 272) to allow
changes to projects in Pennsylvania, Louisiana, New York, and
Texas; authorizes an eligibility change for Alaska under FTA's
section 5309 program; transfers funds in California contained
in P.L. 103-331; and includes the city of Norman, OK to be
considered as part of the Oklahoma City Transportation
Management Area.
Section 332 prohibits the use of funds in this Act for DOT
to finalize or implement ``Statewide Planning, Metropolitan
Transportation Planning'' rule published on June 19, 2002.
Section 333 prohibits the use of funds in this Act for DOT
to develop or implement a pilot program allowing commercial
drivers 18 to 20 years of age to operate commercial motor
carriers in interstate commerce.
Section 334 amends the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 to extend the exemption from the federal
axle weight restrictions to include over-the-road buses.
Section 335 subjects funds provided in this Act to the
stipulations in Section 350 of Public Law 107-87, including the
annual report on the safety and security of Mexico-domicited
motor carriers operating in the United States.
Section 336 amends Section 11123 of title 49, United States
Code, to ensure that emergency rail service is continued if
Amtrak should cease operation.
Section 337 encourages the Secretary of Transportation and
the FAA to implement a plan between the State of Illinois, the
City of Chicago, and other parties for the purpose of
modernizing O'Hare International Airport, continuing operation
of Meigs Field, and utilizing existing airports to help relieve
congestion.
Section 338 amends the Air Transportation Safety and System
Stabilization Act by inserting into section 402 the definition
of the term ``air carrier.''
Section 339 requires the FAA to report to Congress on the
safety implications of allowing small airports to use AIP funds
to build or equip a visual flight rule air traffic control
tower that would be operated under the contract tower program
and on whether small airports that have already built towers
should be eligible for reimbursement from the AIP funds.
Section 340 prohibits funds provided in this Act to be
transferred without expressed authority.
Section 341 requires Amtrak to submit an annual report to
the appropriate Congressional Committees detailing their per
passenger operating loss for each rail line.
Section 342 requires that any explosive detection system
purchased pursuant to 49 U.S.C 44901(d) will be purchased by
the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security.
Section 343 amends language in the Aviation and
Transportation Security Act, so as to only require the use of
law enforcement officers at airports, instead of designating
the use of federal officers.
Section 344 limits the use of funds to terminate or limit
restrictions imposed under Federal Aviation Administration
Notices to Airmen FDC 1/3353 or 2/9583.
Section 345 restricts procurement of Coast Guard ships
unless they are in compliance with the Buy American Act.
Section 346 amends section 13703, of title 49, United
States Code, by allowing the STB to approve applications from
truck rate bureaus seeking to publish national rates.
Section 347 restricts funds to apply or enforce a
regulatory requirement for strengthening flight deck doors
until further review by the TSA.
The Committee has not included provisions proposed in the
budget: (1) limiting federal funds for new fixed guideway
projects to no more than 50 percent; (2) allowing funds for
construction of state border safety inspection facilities in
Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas; (3) allowing
Federal Highway Administration funds to purchase promotional
items for employment recruiting and safety programs; (4)
increasing fees charged for hazardous material registration and
inspection and crediting such fees to the Research and Special
Programs account; (5) authorizing collection of fees for
railroad safety and crediting such fees to the Federal Railroad
Administration account; (6) restricting eligibility for
essential air service subsidies; and (7) authorizing the
waiving of the matching requirements of the emergency fund
under section 125 and the federal share of section 123, United
States Code.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS

The following items are included in accordance with various
requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives:

Constitutional Authority

Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives states:

Each report of a committee on a bill or joint
resolution of a public character, shall include a
statement citing the specific powers granted to the
Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed
by the bill or joint resolution.

The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to
report this legislation from clause 7 of section 9 of Article I
of the Constitution of the United States of America which
states:

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in
consequence of Appropriations made by law . . .

Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to
this specific power granted by the Constitution.

Transfers of Funds

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules 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:
Under Federal Transit Administration, Formula grants:
Provided further, That notwithstanding section 3008 of Public
Law 105-178, the $50,000,000 to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5308 shall
be transferred to and merged with funding provided for the
replacement, rehabilitation, and purchase of buses and related
equipment and the construction of bus-related facilities under
``Federal Transit Administration, Capital investment grants''.
Under Federal Railroad Administration, under Grants to the
National Railroad Passenger Corporation: Provided that up to
$100,000,000 from capital grants shall be transferred to
operating expenses if approved by the Secretary of the
Department of Transportation.
Under the general provisions:
Sec. 313. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and
except for fixed guideway modernization projects, funds made
available by this Act under ``Federal Transit Administration,
Capital investment grants'' for projects specified in this Act
or identified in reports accompanying this Act not obligated by
September 30, 2005, and other recoveries, shall be available
for other projects under 49 U.S.C. 5309.
Sec. 314. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any
funds appropriated before October 1, 2002, under any section of
chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code, that remain
available for expenditure may be transferred to and
administered under the most recent appropriation heading for
any such section.

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following is a statement of
general performance goals and objectives for which this measure
authorizes funding:
The Committee on Appropriations strongly considers program
performance, including a program's success in developing and
attaining outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing
funding recommendations. This includes a review of agency and
departmental performance plans, audits, and investigations of
the U.S. General Accounting Office and the Department of
Transportation Office of Inspector General, and other
performance-related information. The Committee's goal is to
provide adequate, but not excessive, resources for the programs
covered by this Act, consistent with funding allocations
provided by the Congressional budget process.

Compliance With Rule XIII, Clause 3(e) (Ramseyer Rule)

In compliance with clause 3(e) 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):

TRANSPORTATION EQUITY FOR THE 21st CENTURY

* * * * * * *

TITLE I--FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

* * * * * * *

Subtitle F--High Priority Projects

* * * * * * *

SEC. 1602. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

Subject to section 117 of title 23, United States Code, the
amount listed for each high priority project in the following
table shall be available (from amounts made available by
section 1101(a)(13) of the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century) for fiscal years 1998 through 2003 to carry out
each such project:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Dollars
No. State Project description in
millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Georgia I-75 advanced 1.7
transportation
management system in
Cobb County.........
* * * * * * *
75. New York [Construct Edgewater 9
Road Dedicated Truck
Route] Bronx, NY
River Greenway......
* * * * * * *
230. New York [Construct new exit 6
46A on I-90 at Route
170 in North Chili]
Monroe County
transportation
improvements on Long
Pond Road,
Pattonwood Road, and
Leyll road..........
* * * * * * *
426. Louisiana Conduct feasibility 3.75
study, design and
construction of
connector between
Louisiana Highway
[16] 1026 to I-12 in
Livingston Parish...
* * * * * * *
696. Pennsylvania Gettysburg 3
comprehensive road
improvement study
and construction of
projects identified
in the study........
* * * * * * *
933. New York [Redesign Grand 9.75
Concourse to enhance
traffic flow and
related enhancements
between E. 161st
Street and Fordham
Road, New York City]
Design,
construction, and
related enhancement
of the Grand
Concourse between E.
161st St. and E.
166th St., New York
City................
* * * * * * *
1108. Texas [Construct 6th and 0.375
7th Street overpass
over railroad yard,
Brownsville]
Construct west Rail
Project in or near
Brownsville,
including a new
railroad
international bridge
crossing over the
Rio Grande River....
* * * * * * *
1269. New York [Implement Melrose 0.75
Commons geographic
information system]
Bronx, NY Center
Transportation
Project.............
* * * * * * *
1344. New York [Upgrade Frederick 9
Douglas Circle, New
York City] Upgrade
Frederic Douglas
Circle and
Manahattan Avenue
from West 110th
Street to West 125th
Street, New York
City................
* * * * * * *
1735. Pennsylvania Construct new 5
interchange at I-95
and PA Turnpike and
related
improvements,
including Type II
noise abatement
projects along
Interstate 95 in
Bensalem Township
between Exit 25 and
26, Bucks County....
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE III--FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS

* * * * * * *

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

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) Effect of Authorization.--
(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) Intermodal center authorizations.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, each of the
following projects are eligible for funding under
section 5309(m)(1)(C) of title 49, United States Code:
(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

[(D)] (E) Alabama State Docks intermodal
passenger and freight facility.
(F) Port of Anchorage Intermodal passenger
and freight facility.

* * * * * * *

----------

ALASKA RAILROAD TRANSFER ACT OF 1982

(Title VI of Public Law 97-468)

TITLE VI--ALASKA RAILROAD TRANSFER

* * * * * * *

TRANSFER AUTHORIZATION

Sec. 604. (a) * * *
(b)(1) On the date of transfer, the Secretary shall
simultaneously:
(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

Prior to taking the action specified in subparagraphs (A)
through (D) of this paragraph, the Secretary shall consult with
the Secretary of the Interior. The exclusive-use easement
granted pursuant to subparagraph (D) of this paragraph and all
rights afforded by such easement shall be exercised only for
railroad purposes, and for such other transportation,
transmission, or communication purposes for which lands subject
to such easement were utilized as of the date of enactment of
this Act. [In the event of reversion to the United States,
pursuant to section 610 of this title, of the State's interests
in all or part of the lands subject to such easement, such
easement shall terminate with respect to the lands subject to
such reversion, and no new exclusive-use easement with respect
to such reverted lands shall be granted except by Act of
Congress.]

* * * * * * *

FUTURE RIGHTS-OF-WAY

Sec. 609. (a) * * *

* * * * * * *

[(c) Reversion to the United States of any portion of any
right-of-way or exclusive-use easement granted to the State or
State-owned railroad shall occur only as provided in section
610 of this title. For purposes of such section, the date of
the approval of any such right-of-way shall be deemed the
``date of transfer''.

[REVERSION

[Sec. 610. (a) If, within ten years after the date of
transfer to the State authorized by section 604 of this title,
the Secretary finds that all or part of the real property
transferred to the State under this title, except that portion
of real property which lies within the boundaries of the Denali
National Park and Preserve, is converted to a use that would
prevent the State-owned railroad from continuing to operate,
that real property (including permanent improvements to the
property) shall revert to the United States Government, or (at
the option of the State) the State shall pay to the United
States Government an amount determined to be the fair market
value of that property at the time its conversion prevents
continued operation of the railroad.
[(b) If, after the date of transfer pursuant to section 604
of this title, the State discontinues use of any land within
the right-of-way, the State's interest in such land shall
revert to the United States. The State shall be considered to
have discontinued use within the meaning of this subsection and
subsection (d) of this section when:
[(1) the Governor of the State of Alaska delivers to
the Secretary of the Interior a notice of such
discontinuance, including a legal description of the
property subject to the notice, and a quitclaim deed
thereto; or
[(2) the State has made no use of the land for a
continuous period of eighteen years for transportation,
communication, or transmission purposes. Notice of such
discontinuance shall promptly be published in the
Federal Register by the Secretary, the Secretary of the
Interior, or the Secretary of Agriculture, and
reversion shall be effected one year after such notice,
unless within such one-year period the State brings an
appropriate action in the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska to establish that the use
has been continuing without an eighteen-year lapse. Any
such action shall have the effect of staying reversion
until exhaustion of appellate review from the final
judgment in that action or termination of the right to
seek such review, whichever first occurs.
[(c) Upon such reversion pursuant to subsection (b) of this
section, the Secretary of the Interior shall immediately convey
by patent to abutting landowners all right, title and interest
of the United States. Where land abutting the reverted right-
of-way is owned by different persons or entities, the
conveyance made pursuant to this subsection shall extend the
property of each abutting owner to the centerline of the right-
of-way.
[(d) If use is discontinued (as that term is used in
subsection (b) of this section) of all or part of those
properties of the Alaska Railroad transferred to the State
pursuant to this title which lie within the boundaries of the
Denali National Park and Preserve or the Chugach National
Forest, such properties or part thereof (including permanent
improvements to the property) shall revert to the United States
and shall not be subject to subsection (c) of this section.
Upon such reversion, jurisdiction over that property shall be
transferred to the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary
of Agriculture, as appropriate, for administration as part of
the Denali National Park and Preserve or the Chugach National
Forest.
[(e) Except as provided in subsections (a) through (d) of
this section, if, within five years after the date of transfer
to the State pursuant to section 604 of this title, the State
sells or transfers all or substantially all of the State-owned
railroad to an entity other than an instrumentality of the
State, the proceeds from the sale or transfer that exceed the
cost of any rehabilitation and improvement made by the State
for the State-owned railroad and any net liabilities incurred
by the State for the State-owned railroad shall be paid into
the general fund of the Treasury of the United States.
[(f) The Attorney General, upon the request of the Secretary,
the Secretary of the Interior, or the Secretary of Agriculture,
shall institute appropriate proceedings to enforce this section
in the United States District Court for the District of
Alaska.]

* * * * * * *

----------

SECTION 1023 OF THE INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT OF
1991

SEC. 1023. GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT RESTRICTION.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(h) Over-the-Road Buses and Public Transit Vehicles.--
(1) Temporary exemption.--The second sentence of
section 127 of title 23, United States Code, relating
to axle weight limitations for vehicles using the
Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense
Highways, shall not apply, for the period beginning on
October 6, 1992, and ending on October 1, 2003, [to any
vehicle which] to--
(A) any over-the-road bus (as defined in
section 301 of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12181)); or
(B) any vehicle that is regularly and
exclusively used as an intrastate public agency
transit passenger bus.

* * * * * * *

----------

TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE

* * * * * * *

SUBTITLE IV--INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION

* * * * * * *

PART A--RAIL

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 111--OPERATIONS

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER II--CAR SERVICE

* * * * * * *

Sec. 11123. Situations requiring immediate action to serve the public

(a) When the Board determines that shortage of equipment,
congestion of traffic, unauthorized cessation of operations,
failure of existing commuter passenger transportation
operations caused by a cessation of service by the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation, or other failure of traffic
movement exists which creates an emergency situation of such
magnitude as to have substantial adverse effects on shippers,
or on rail service in a region of the United States, or that a
rail carrier providing transportation subject to the
jurisdiction of the Board under this part cannot transport the
traffic offered to it in a manner that properly serves the
public, the Board may, to promote commerce and service to the
public, for a period not to exceed 30 days--
(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) prescribe temporary through routes; [or]
(4) give directions for--
(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(C) movement of traffic under permits[.]; or
(5) in the case of a failure of existing freight or
commuter rail passenger transportation operations
caused by a cessation of service by the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation, direct the continuation
of the operations and dispatching, maintenance, and
other necessary infrastructure functions related to the
operations.
(b)(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) [When] (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), when a
rail carrier is directed under this section to operate the
lines of another rail carrier due to that carrier's cessation
of operations, compensation for the directed operations shall
derive only from revenues generated by the directed operations.
(B) In the case of a failure of existing freight or commuter
rail passenger transportation operations caused by a cessation
of service by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, the
Board may provide funding, to the extent provided in advance in
appropriations acts, to support activities directed under
subsection (a), including the payment of increased insurance
premiums. The Board may order complete indemnification against
any and all claims associated with the provision of service to
which the directed rail carrier may be exposed.

* * * * * * *

(e) For purposes of this section, the National Railroad
Passenger Corporation and any entity providing commuter rail
passenger transportation shall be considered rail carriers
subject to the Board's jurisdiction.
(f) For purposes of this section, the term ``commuter rail
passenger transportation'' has the meaning given that term in
section 24102(4).

* * * * * * *

SUBTITLE V--RAIL PROGRAMS

* * * * * * *

PART C--PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 243--AMTRAK

* * * * * * *

Sec. 24301. Status and applicable laws

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) Application of Subtitle IV.--Subtitle IV of this title
shall not apply to Amtrak, except for sections 11123, 11301,
11322(a), 11502, and 11706. Notwithstanding the preceding
sentence, Amtrak shall continue to be considered an employer
under the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974, the Railroad
Unemployment Insurance Act, and the Railroad Retirement Tax
Act.

* * * * * * *

SUBTITLE VII--AVIATION PROGRAMS

* * * * * * *

PART A--AIR COMMERCE AND SAFETY

* * * * * * *

SUBPART III--SAFETY

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 449--SECURITY

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER I--REQUIREMENTS

* * * * * * *

Sec. 44920. Security screening opt-out program

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) Supervision of Screened Personnel.--The Under Secretary
shall provide Federal Government supervisors to oversee all
screening at each airport at which screening services are
provided under this section and provide [Federal Government]
law enforcement officers at the airport pursuant to this
chapter.

* * * * * * *

----------

AIR TRANSPORTATION SAFETY AND SYSTEM STABILIZATION ACT

* * * * * * *

TITLE IV--VICTIM COMPENSATION

* * * * * * *

SEC. 402. DEFINITIONS.

In this title, the following definitions apply:
[(1) Air carrier.--The term ``air carrier'' means a
citizen of the United States undertaking by any means,
directly or indirectly, to provide air transportation
and includes employees and agents of such citizen. The
term ``air carrier'' does not include a person, other
than an air carrier, engaged in the business of
providing air transportation security.]
(1) Air carrier.--The term ``air carrier'' means a
citizen of the United States undertaking by any means,
directly or indirectly, to provide air transportation
and includes employees and agents (including persons
engaged in the business of providing air transportation
security and their affiliates) of such citizen. For
purposes of the preceding sentence, the term ``agent'',
as applied to persons engaged in the business of
providing air transportation security, shall only
include persons that have contracted directly with the
Federal Aviation Administration and commenced services
no later than February 17, 2002, to provide such
security, and had not been debarred for any period
within 6 months from that date.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 408. LIMITATION ON AIR CARRIER LIABILITY.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) Exclusion.--Nothing in this section shall in any way
limit any liability of any person who is a knowing participant
in any conspiracy to hijack any aircraft or commit any
terrorist act. Subsections (a) and (b) do not apply to civil
actions to recover collateral source obligations. [Nothing in
this section shall in any way limit any liability of any person
who is engaged in the business of providing air transportation
security and who is not an airline or airport sponsor or
director, officer, or employee of an airline or airport
sponsor.]

* * * * * * *

----------

SECTION 110 OF THE AVIATION AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ACT

SEC. 110. SCREENING.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) Deadline for Deployment of Federal Screeners.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary of
Transportation for Security shall deploy at all
airports in the United States where screening is
required under section 44901 of title 49, United States
Code, a sufficient number of Federal screeners, Federal
Security Managers, Federal security personnel, and
[Federal] law enforcement officers to conduct the
screening of all passengers and property under section
44901 of such title at such airports.

* * * * * * *

TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE

* * * * * * *

SUBTITLE IV--INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 137--RATES AND THROUGH ROUTES

* * * * * * *

Sec. 13703. Certain collective activities; exemption from antitrust
laws

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

[(d) Limitation.--The Board shall not take any action that
would permit the establishment of nationwide collective rate-
making authority.]
[(e)] (d) Existing Agreements.--
(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

[(f)] (e) Limitations on Statutory Construction.--
(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

[(g)] (f) Industry Standard Guides.--
(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

[(h)] (g) Single Line Rate Defined.--In this section, the
term ``single line rate'' means a rate, charge, or allowance
proposed by a single motor carrier that is applicable only over
its line and for which the transportation can be provided by
that carrier.

* * * * * * *

Changes in the Application of Existing Law

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the following statements are
submitted describing the effect of provisions in the
accompanying bill which directly or indirectly change 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 includes a number of limitations on the purchase
of automobiles, motorcycles, or office furnishings. Similar
limitations have appeared in many previous appropriations Acts.
Language is included in several instances permitting
certain funds to be credited to the appropriations recommended.
Language is included under Office of the Secretary,
``Salaries and expenses'' which would allow crediting the
account with up to $2,500,000 in user fees.
Language is included under the Office of the Secretary,
``Salaries and expenses'' limiting the use of funds available
for the position of Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs.
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 the Transportation Security
Administration, ``Aviation security'' which would allow
crediting the account with security service fees, estimated at
not more than $1,712,726,000.
Language is included under the Transportation Security
Administration, ``Aviation security'' limiting the full-time
staffing level to 45,000.
Language is included under the Transportation Security
Administration, ``Aviation security'' requiring funds spent on
TSA's Credentialing Project to include pilot projects at
locations on both the East and West Coasts and requiring that
those projects should include a variety of technologies.
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 limits the funds spent for increased staffing,
training, revising of policies and modernizing equipment.
Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Operating
expenses'' that instructs the Inspector General to report to
the House and Senate Appropriations Committee on the above
funding.
Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Acquisition,
construction, and improvements'' that credits funds from the
disposal of surplus real property by sale or lease.
Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Acquisition,
construction, and improvements'' requiring the Secretary to
submit to Congress a comprehensive capital investment plan for
the Coast Guard with the submission of their fiscal year 2004
budget.
Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Acquisition
construction, and improvements'' requiring the OMB director to
submit to the Congress the budget request for certain
subheadings of the IDS integration contract.
Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Alteration of
bridges'' requiring that certain projects must use steel, iron,
and manufactured products produced only in the United States.
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 Federal Aviation
Administration, ``Operations'' limiting funds for certain
aviation program activities.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation
Administration, ``Operations'' that prohibits funds to plan,
finalize, or implement any regulation that would promulgate new
aviation user fees not specifically authorized by law after the
date of enactment of this Act.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation
Administration, ``Operations'' that credits funds received from
States, counties, municipalities, foreign authorities, other
public authorities, and private sources for expenses incurred
in the provision of agency services.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation
Administration, ``Operations'' that provides $6,000,000 for the
contract tower cost-sharing program.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation
Administration, ``Operations'' permitting the use of funds to
enter into a grant agreement with a nonprofit standard-setting
organization to develop aviation 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 Federal Aviation
Administration, ``Operations'' that prohibits the use of funds
for Sunday premium pay unless an employee actually performed
work during the time corresponding to the premium pay.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation
Administration, ``Operations'' that prohibits funds from being
used to operate a manned auxiliary flight service station in
the contiguous United States.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation
Administration, ``Operations'' that prohibits funds for
conducting and coordinating activities on aeronautical charting
and cartography through the Transportation Administrative
Service Center.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``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 Federal Aviation Administration,
``Facilities and equipment'' that requires the Secretary of
Transportation to transmit a comprehensive capital investment
plan for the Federal Aviation Administration.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``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 under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Grants-in-aid for airports'' that limits funds available for
the planning or execution of programs with delegations in
excess of $3,400,000,000.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Grants-in-aid for airports'' that provides not more than
$62,820,000 for administration.
The bill includes limitations on administrative expenses of
the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration. The bill also includes a
limitation on transportation research of the Federal Highway
Administration.
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 the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, ``Highway traffic safety grants''
prohibiting the use of funds for construction, rehabilitation
or remodeling costs or for office furniture for state, local,
or private buildings.
Language is included under the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, ``Highway traffic safety grants''
limiting the amount of funds available for technical assistance
to the states under section 410.
Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration,
``Railroad rehabilitation and improvement program'' 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,
``Railroad rehabilitation and improvement program'' that
prohibits new direct loans or loan guarantee commitments using
federal funds for credit risk premium under section 502 of the
Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act.
Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration,
``Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation'' that
provides quarterly apportionment for capital funding and
requires non-federal entities to provide payments on lines that
have a greater than $200 passenger loss based on procedures
developed by the Secretary of Transportation.
Language is included under Federal Transit Administration,
``Administrative expenses'' that reimburses $2,000,000 to the
Department of Transportation's Inspector General for costs
associated with the audit and review of new fixed guideway
systems.
Language is included under Federal Transit Administration,
``Administrative expenses'' that allows funds to remain
available until expended for the National transit database.
Language is included under Federal Transit Administration,
``Administrative expenses'' that the Secretary of
Transportation will transmit to Congress the annual report on
new starts.
Language is included under the Federal Transit
Administration, ``Formula grants'' reducing funds for each day
that the annual report on new starts is not submitted to
Congress.
Language is included under Federal Transit Administration,
``Formula grants'' that transfers $50,000,000 to be transferred
to ``Federal Transit Administration, Capital investment
grants''.
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, ``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'' that provides the Inspector General
with all necessary authority to investigate allegations of
fraud by any person or entity that is subject to regulation by
the Department of Transportation.
Language is also included under Office of Inspector
General, ``Salaries and expenses'' that authorizes the office
of Inspector General to investigate unfair or deceptive
practices and unfair methods of competition by domestic and
foreign air carriers and ticket agents.
Language is included under Surface Transportation Board,
``Salaries and expenses'' allowing the collection of $1,000,000
in fees established by the Chairman of the Surface
Transportation Board; and providing that the sum appropriated
from the general fund shall be reduced on a dollar-for-dollar
basis as such fees are received.
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.
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.
The bill contains a number of general provisions that allow
for the redistribution of previously appropriated funds.
Section 304 prohibits political and Presidential appointees
in the Department of Transportation and independent agencies
funded in this Act from being assigned on temporary detail
outside the Department or such independent agency.
Section 312 allows airports to transfer to the Federal
Aviation Administration instrument landing systems which
conform to FAA specifications and the purchase of such
equipment was assisted by a federal airport aid program.
Section 316 provides that funds received for training from
States, counties, municipalities, other public authorities, and
private sources by the Federal Highway Administration, Federal
Transit Administration, and Federal Railroad Administration to
be credited to each respective agency except for State rail
safety inspectors participating in training pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 20105.
Section 317 allows funds received by the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics from the sale of data products to be
credited to the Federal-aid highways account for the purpose of
reimbursing the Bureau for such expenses.
Section 319 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to
allow issuers to redeem or repurchase preferred stock sold to
the Department of Transportation.
Section 320 prohibits funds in this Act unless the
Secretary of Transportation notifies the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations not less than three full business
days before any discretionary grant award, letter of intent, or
full funding grant agreement totaling $1,000,000 or more is
announced by the department or its modal administrations.
Section 325 allows States to use funds provided in this Act
under section 402 of title 23, United States Code, to produce
and place highway safety public service messages in accordance
with guidance issued by the Secretary of Transportation, and
requires such States to submit a report describing and
assessing the effectiveness of the messages. It also allows
States to use section 157 and 163 grants to purchase
advertising to be used during seat belt and alcohol
mobilizations and permits the Administrator to evaluate the
effectiveness of purchased advertising on seat belt and
alcohol-impaired driving programs.
Section 327 prohibits funds in this Act from being used to
issue, implement, or enforce a regulation that diminishes or
revokes an exemption authorized under 345 of the National
Highway System Designation Act of 1995.
Section 329 requires payments into the Department of
Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund to come from
funds in Coast Guard, ``Operating expense''.
Section 331 allows changes to be made to the table in
section 1602 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century with regard to plans in Louisiana, Pennsylvania, New
York, and Texas; allows changes to be made to section
3030(d)(3) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (P.L. 105-78) with regard to plans in Alaska; allows
changes to be made under ``Surface Transportation Projects''
(P.L. 103-331) with regard to California; allows changes to be
made under ``Surface Transportation Projects'' (P.L. 103-331)
with regard to Texas; and includes the city of Norman, OK to be
considered as part of the Oklahoma City Transportation
Management Area.
Section 334 permits over-the-road buses to be included
under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1991.
Section 336 permits continued operation of freight and
commuter rail services if a cessation of service by the
National Railroad Corporation should occur.
Section 338 amends the Air Transportation Safety and System
Stabilization Act (49 U.S.C. 40101 note) by inserting into
section 402 the definition of the term ``air carrier.''
Section 342 requires that any explosive detection system
purchase must be made by the Under Secretary of Transportation
for Security.
Section 343 amends language in the Aviation and
Transportation Security Act, so as to only require the use of
law enforcement officers at airports, instead of designating
the use of federal officers.
Section 344 prohibits funds in this Act from terminating or
limiting restrictions imposed under FAA Notices to Airmen FDC
2/0199, issued on September 27, 2002.
Section 345 prohibits the procurement of Coast Guard ships,
including main diesel engines, unless such procurement is in
compliance with the Buy American Act, 41 U.S.C. 10(a)-10(d).
The Committee does not seek to amend the Act to apply content
standards to individual components of vessels.
Section 346 amends section 13703, of title 49, United
States Code, by allowing the STB to approve applications from
truck rate bureaus seeking to publish national rates.

Appropriations Not Authorized by Law

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following table lists the
appropriations in the accompanying bill that are not authorized
by law:

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations
Last year of Authorization in last year Appropriations
Agency and Appropriation authorization level of recommended in
authorization this bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coast Guard:
Operating Expenses.......................... 1999 \1\ 3,006,200 3,013,506 4,305,456
Acquisition, Construction and Improvement... 1999 \2\ 1,140,600 625,465 725,000
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation. 1999 18,300 17,000 21,000
Environmental Compliance and Restoration.... 1999 26,000 21,000 17,000
Federal Aviation Administration:
Research, Engineering and Development....... 2002 249,000 195,000 138,000
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
Operations & Research....................... 2001 116,976 126,445 131,433
Federal Railroad Administration:
Safety and Operations \3\ Railroad Safety... 1998 90,739 57,050 117,363
Grants to Amtrak--Capital................... 2002 955,000 \4\ 826,476 762,476
Research & Special Programs Administration:
Pipeline Safety............................. 2000 37,718 30,447 58,697
Hazardous Materials......................... 1997 19,670 15,472 22,998
Surface Transportation Board:
Salaries and Expenses....................... 1998 12,000 13,850 19,450
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $151.5 million authorized in the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act through FY 2001.
\2\ Includes $630.3 million authorized in the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act through FY 1999.
\3\ Was formerly the Office of the Administrator and Railroad Safety Accounts. The Office of the Administrator
had general authority under 49 U.S.C. Section 103, however, no specific amount was authorized.
\4\ Includes $205,000,000 is FY 2002 emergency supplemental funding.

Comparison With the Budget Resolution

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with
section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as
amended, which requires that the report accompanying a bill
providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing
how that authority compares with the reports submitted under
section 302 of the Act for the most recently agreed to
concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year from
the Committee's section 302(a) allocation. This information
follows:

[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
302(b) allocation This bill
---------------------------------------------------
Full committee data Budget Budget
authority Outlays authority Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison with Budget Resolution:
Discretionary \1\....................................... 19,411 60,369 19,413 62,358
Mandatory............................................... 889 914 889 914
---------------------------------------------------
Total \2\............................................. 20,300 61,283 20,302 63,272
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Budget authority in this bill excludes $1,445,000 for the mass transit category.
\2\ Prior to House consideration of the bill, the Committee intends to adjust the 302(b) allocations to
eliminate any breach.

Five-Year Outlay Projections

In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the following table contains
five-year projections associated with the budget authority
provided in the accompanying bill as provided to the Committee
by the Congressional Budget Office:
In millions of dollars
Budget authority........................................ 21,727
Outlays \1\:
2003................................................ 24,313
2004................................................ 19,482
2005................................................ 7,820
2006................................................ 3,531
2007 and future years............................... 4,160

\1\ Excludes outlays from prior year budget authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments

In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, 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:
In millions of dollars
Budget Authority........................................ 1,618
Fiscal year 2003 outlays................................ 8,795

Recissions

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following table is submitted
describing the rescissions recommended in the accompanying
bill:

Federal Highway Administration.......................... $5,609,337.46

Full Committee Votes

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of
the Rules of the House of Representatives, the results of each
rollcall vote on an amendment or on the motion to report,
together with the names of those voting for and those voting
against, are printed below:
ROLLCALL NO. 1

Date: September 26, 2002.
Measure: Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill, FY 2003.
Motion by: Mr. Sabo.
Description of motion: To raise funding for the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation from $762,476,000 to
$1,200,000,000 and change the distribution of those funds.
Results: Rejected 25 yeas to 35 nays.
Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd Mr. Aderholt
Mr. Clyburn Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Cramer Mr. Cunningham
Ms. DeLauro Mr. DeLay
Mr. Dicks Mr. Doolittle
Mr. Edwards Mrs. Emerson
Mr. Fattah Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Hinchey Mr. Goode
Mr. Hoyer Ms. Granger
Mr. Jackson Mr. Hobson
Mr. Kennedy Mr. Istook
Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. Kingston
Mrs. Lowey Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Meek Mr. Kolbe
Mr. Moran Mr. LaHood
Mr. Obey Mr. Latham
Mr. Olver Mr. Lewis
Mr. Pastor Mr. Miller
Ms. Pelosi Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. Price Mrs. Northup
Mr. Rothman Mr. Peterson
Ms. Roybal-Allard Mr. Regula
Mr. Sabo Mr. Rogers
Mr. Serrano Mr. Sherwood
Mr. Visclosky Mr. Skeen
Mr. Sununu
Mr. Sweeney
Mr. Taylor
Mr. Tiahrt
Mr. Vitter
Mr. Walsh
Mr. Wamp
Mr. Wicker
Mr. Wolf
Mr. Young
ROLLCALL NO. 2

Date: October 1, 2002.
Measure: Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill, FY 2003.
Motion by: Mr. Edwards.
Description of motion: To increase the obligation
limitation under ``Federal-aid highways'' from $27,653,143,000
to $31,800,000,000.
Results: Rejected 26 yeas to 29 nays.
Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay
Mr. Boyd Mr. Aderholt
Mr. Cramer Mr. Bonilla
Ms. DeLauro Mr. Callahan
Mr. Dicks Mr. Cunningham
Mr. Edwards Mr. Doolittle
Mr. Farr Mrs. Emerson
Mr. Hinchey Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Hoyer Mr. Goode
Mr. Jackson Mr. Granger
Ms. Kaptur Mr. Hobson
Mr. Kennedy Mr. Istook
Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. Kingston
Mrs. Meek Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Mollohan Mr. Kolbe
Mr. Moran Mr. Lewis
Mr. Murtha Mr. Miller
Mr. Obey Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. Olver Mr. Regula
Mr. Pastor Mr. Rogers
Ms. Pelosi Mr. Sherwood
Mr. Price Mr. Skeen
Mr. Rothman Mr. Sweeney
Ms. Roybal-Allard Mr. Tiahrt
Mr. Sabo Mr. Vitter
Mr. Serrano Mr. Walsh
Mr. Visclosky Mr. Wamp
Mr. Wicker
Mr. Wolf
Mr. Young

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. DAVID R. OBEY AND HON. MARTIN OLAV SABO

The creation of the Transportation Security Administration
(TSA), requiring billions of general taxpayer dollars, has put
a strain on funding for traditional transportation
infrastructure programs. The Amtrak funding proposed in the
bill is a prime example of this strain. Both Amtrak and TSA
should be adequately funded. Unfortunately, Amtrak is
shortchanged.
Amtrak is funded at $762 million--$438 million, or 36%,
less than the $1.2 billion both Amtrak and the DOT Inspector
General say that Amtrak needs in fiscal year 2003. Amtrak
President David Gunn has said ``. . . that should $762 million
be the final amount enacted. Amtrak will run out of money early
in 2003, and we will again be faced with another shutdown
crisis.''
The DOT Inspector General has written. ``Without changes to
the structure of the system or additional capital funding from
other sources, the reliability of Amtrak service in 2003 is
likely at risk, and this risk will rise as the level of Federal
or other funding declines [below the $1.2 billion].
In 2002, Amtrak's appropriations totaled $831 million from
the Federal Government (the regular appropriation of $521
million, a $100 million loan from DOT that must be paid back,
and $205 million and $5 million in the emergency supplemental).
Amtrak also had use of $313 million, appropriated in 2001, but
not available until 2002.
The funding that is provided to Amtrak in 2003 in the
committee bill is 8% less than what was appropriated in 2002
and 25% less than what was available to Amtrak from the Federal
government in 2002. And Amtrak's maintenance needs have grown.
Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has not shown
leadership on Amtrak. The Administration has asked for
meaningful reforms for Amtrak, but has yet to submit any
specific legislative proposals to the Congress. The President's
appointees in the Department of Transportation have also
admitted that if the President's Budget request of $521 million
were enacted Amtrak would cease to exist.
At the $762 million funding level contained in the
committee bill, the Congress will be back next February needing
to provide more funding to Amtrak to get it through the year,
just as it did last July when the emergency supplemental was
enacted.
A manager's amendment adopted in full committee deleted a
provision in the bill that would have provided no federal
funding, beginning in July, to all routes where the per
passenger subsidy is over $200. Instead, the bill now caps the
federal funding that can be provided for long distance trains
at $150 million. As the old saying goes, a hose of another
color is still a horse.
The fact is that Amtrak cannot run all existing long
distance trains on $150 million. So some, if not all, long
distance trains will have to be discontinued. Some have
estimated that this will impact 13 of the 18 long distance
Amtrak trains, including:
The Sunset Limited from Orlando to Los Angeles via
Jacksonville, Tallahassee, Pensacola, Mobile, New
Orleans, Houston, San Antonio and Tucson;
The Pennsylvania from Philadelphia to Chicago via
Harrisburg, Cleveland, Toledo, and Pittsburgh;
The Texas Eagle from Chicago to Los Angeles via
Springfield, St. Louis, Little Rock, Dallas, Austin,
San Antonio, and Tucson;
The Three Rivers from New York to Chicago via
Philadelphia, Harrisburg, and Pittsburgh;
The Southwest Chief from Chicago to Los Angeles via
Kansas City, Topeka, Albuquerque, and Flagstaff;
The Kentucky Cardinal from Chicago to Louisville via
Indianapolis;
The Cardinal from Washington to Chicago via
Charleston, WV, Cincinnati, and Indianapolis;
The Capitol Limited from Washington to Chicago via
Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Toledo;
The California Zephyr from Chicago to Oakland via
Omaha, Lincoln, Denver, Salt Lake City, Reno, and
Sacramento;
The Lake Shore Limited from New York to Chicago via
Albany, Syracuse, Buffalo, Cleveland, and Toledo;
The Crescent from New York to New Orelans via
Philadelphia, Wilmington, Baltimore, Washington, D.C.,
Greensboro, Charlotte, Greenville, Atlanta, and
Birmingham;
The Silver Palm from New York to Miami via
Philadelphia, Wilmington, Baltimore, Washington, D.C.,
Richmond, Charleston, SC, Savannah, Jacksonville,
Tampa, and Ft. Lauderdale; and
The City of New Orleans from Chicago to New Orleans
via Memphis.
It is also a fact that a $762 million funding level could
negatively impact other Amtrak service. Amtrak's maintenance
backlog will grow, more trains will be put out of service and
scheduled service will be delayed or canceled.
This is not the kind of train service that the American
people expect and deserve, and such a prospect flies in the
face of the ridership gains that Amtrak has made over the past
five years.
It also ignores the critical role that Amtrak played
following the September 11 attacks. After September 11,
travelers turned to Amtrak as an alternative to flying. If
Amtrak had not existed on September 11, just think of the
transportation nightmare we would have experienced. Further,
many of the travelers on the Northeast Corridor who used Amtrak
after September 11 continue to do so.
Congress is now faced with the decision of whether to fund
Amtrak properly or eliminate it. It's really as simple as that.
We think that the choice is clear: Amtrak should be funded at
$1.2 billion.

David Obey.
Martin O. Sabo.

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF THE HONORABLE CHET EDWARDS

The Administration's 2003 budget request for highways
totaled $23.2 billion, as $8.6 billion reduction from 2002.
This committee was able to raise the guaranteed funding level--
the budget floor, not the budget limit--for highways to $27.7
billion in the supplemental by waiving the automatic funding
adjustment in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA21) called ``revenue aligned budget authority.''
However, the committee voted against an amendment I offered to
raise 2003 highway funding to the 2002 level of $31.8 billion.
This $4.1 billion highway funding reduction will result in
job loss and increased congestion. It will affect the quality
of life of our people and the profitability of our businesses.
In years like this one, when the economy is troubled, we
should be debating how the federal government can spur economic
growth and put more people to work. The Republicans would do
this all with tax cuts. However, since the days of Roosevelt,
and even before, construction programs have been excellent
vehicles for job creation. In fact, the states and the highway
construction industry estimate that for every $1 billion put
into highway construction and reconstruction, over 47,500 jobs
are created.
Not continuing highway funding at the fiscal 2002 level,
will result in the loss of almost 200,000 jobs over a seven-
year period, as is seen in the table that follows. It will also
hamper improvements to the conditions of our nation's highways
and bridges; 21% of the bridges on our National Highway System
are below standard. It will also increase highway congestion,
where now in urban areas travelers spend an average of 32 hours
a year, or a total of 4 working days, in traffic.
Highway congestion not only affects our personal lives, it
affects our businesses by making products more expensive. The
Texas Transportation Institute found that traffic congestion
costs America $75 billion annually in wasted time and fuel.
Investment in our highway infrastructure is also an investment
in safety of our roads, on which 42,000 people die annually in
traffic accidents.
It is unfortunate the Committee defeated the amendment to
maintain highway funding at the 2002 level to meet the needs of
our nation's highway system. This was an opportunity missed,
and the American people will pay the price.
Chet Edwards.
(GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT)