You are here

Report

Report

From the Senate Reports Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]


Calendar No. 504 104th Congress Report SENATE 2d Session 104-325 _______________________________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 1997 _______ July 19, 1996--Ordered to be printed _______________________________________________________________________ Mr. Hatfield, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the following R E P O R T [To accompany H.R. 3675] The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the bill (H.R. 3675) making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for other purposes, reports the same to the Senate with amendments and recommends that the bill as amended do pass. Amounts of new budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 1997 Amount of bill passed by the House...................... $12,551,311,000 Amount of bill as reported to Senate.................... 12,560,535,000 Amount of budget estimates, 1997........................ 12,633,915,627 Fiscal year 1996 enacted................................ 11,918,532,831 C O N T E N T S ---------- SUMMARY OF MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS Page Total obligational authority..................................... 4 TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary Salaries and expenses............................................ 5 Office of Civil Rights........................................... 6 Transportation planning, research, and development............... 6 Transportation Administrative Service Center..................... 7 Payments to air carriers......................................... 8 Rental payments.................................................. 12 Minority Business Resource Center Program........................ 15 Minority business outreach....................................... 15 U.S. Coast Guard Operating expenses............................................... 21 Acquisition, construction, and improvements...................... 29 Environmental compliance and restoration......................... 36 Port safety development.......................................... 37 Alteration of bridges............................................ 37 Retired pay...................................................... 38 Reserve training................................................. 38 Research, development, test, and evaluation...................... 39 Boat safety...................................................... 40 Federal Aviation Administration Operations....................................................... 41 Facilities and equipment......................................... 54 Research, engineering, and development........................... 74 Grants-in-aid for airports....................................... 80 Aircraft Purchase Loan Guarantee Program......................... 84 Federal Highway Administration Limitation on general operating expenses......................... 85 Administrative expenses.......................................... 86 Motor carrier safety operations.................................. 87 Highway-related safety grants.................................... 100 Federal-aid highways............................................. 101 Interstate substitute highways................................... 107 Right-of-way revolving fund...................................... 110 Motor carrier safety grants...................................... 110 Alameda corridor project loan program............................ 112 State infrastructure banks....................................... 112 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Operations and research.......................................... 114 Highway traffic safety grants.................................... 122 Federal Railroad Administration Office of the Administrator...................................... 125 Railroad safety.................................................. 126 Railroad research and development................................ 128 Northeast Corridor Improvement Program........................... 130 High-speed rail trainsets and facilities......................... 132 Next generation high-speed rail.................................. 134 Alaska railroad rehabilitation................................... 135 Pennsylvania Station redevelopment project....................... 135 Rhode Island rail development.................................... 135 Direct loan financing program.................................... 136 Grants to National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)....... 136 Federal Transit Administration Administrative expenses.......................................... 139 Formula grants................................................... 139 University transportation centers................................ 141 Transit planning and research.................................... 141 Trust fund share of transit programs............................. 143 Discretionary grants............................................. 143 Mass transit capital fund........................................ 161 Violent crime reduction programs................................. 161 St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation Operations and maintenance....................................... 162 Research and Special Programs Administration Research and special programs.................................... 164 Pipeline safety.................................................. 167 Emergency preparedness grants.................................... 170 Office of Inspector General Salaries and expenses............................................ 171 Bureau of Transportation Statistics Airport and airway trust fund.................................... 171 Surface Transportation Board Salaries and expenses............................................ 173 TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board: Salaries and expenses.......................................... 175 National Transportation Safety Board: Salaries and expenses...... 175 Panama Canal Commission: Panama Canal Revolving Fund............. 176 TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS General provisions............................................... 178 Compliance with paragraph 7, rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of the Senate..................................................... 180 Compliance with paragraph 7(c), rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of the Senate.................................................. 180 Compliance with paragraph 12, rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate..................................................... 181 Budgetary impact statement....................................... 183 Total Obligational Authority Provided--General Funds and Trust Funds In addition to the appropriation of $12,560,535,000 in new budget authority for fiscal year 1997, large amounts of contract authority are provided by law, the obligation limits for which are contained in the annual appropriations bill. The principal items in this category are the trust funded programs for Federal-aid highways, for mass transit, and for airport development grants. For fiscal year 1997, estimated obligation limitations total $23,214,850,000. program, project, and activity During fiscal year 1997, for the purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-177), as amended, with respect to appropriations contained in the accompanying bill, the terms ``program, project, and activity'' shall mean any item for which a dollar amount is contained in appropriations acts (including joint resolutions providing continuing appropriations) or accompanying reports of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, or accompanying conference reports and joint explanatory statements of the committee of conference. This definition shall apply to all programs for which new budget (obligational) authority is provided, as well as to discretionary grants and discretionary grant allocations made through either bill or report language. In addition, the percentage reductions made pursuant to a sequestration order to funds appropriated for facilities and equipment, Federal Aviation Administration, and for acquisition, construction, and improvements, Coast Guard, shall be applied equally to each budget item that is listed under said accounts in the budget justifications submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations as modified by subsequent appropriations acts and accompanying committee reports, conference reports, or joint explanatory statements of the committee of conference. TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Salaries and Expenses Appropriations, 1996.................................... $56,189,000 Budget estimate, 1997................................... 55,376,000 House allowance......................................... 53,816,000 Committee recommendation 53,376,000 Section 3 of the Department of Transportation Act of October 15, 1966 (Public Law 89-670) provides for establishment of the Office of the Secretary of Transportation [OST]. The Office of the Secretary is composed of the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary immediate offices, the Office of the General Counsel, and five assistant secretarial offices for transportation policy, aviation and international affairs, budget and programs, governmental affairs, and administration. These secretarial offices have policy development and central supervisory and coordinating functions related to the overall planning and direction of the Department of Transportation, including staff assistance and general management supervision of the counterpart offices in the operating administrations of the Department. The Committee recommends a total of $53,376,000 for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Secretary of Transportation including $40,000 for reception and representation expenses. This appropriation will support a personnel level of 486 full-time equivalents. Reductions in staff.--The Committee recommendation reduces the administration's request by $1,000,000. This reduction concurs with the House's observation regarding the Office of Acquisition and Grants Management. However, the Committee has reduced 5 positions from this activity instead of a reduction of 10 positions as recommended by the House. While this activity has previously been supported by both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, it does not appear as though this office has been well utilized, and little value has been added by OST's acquisition oversight. Agencies with large procurement budgets, notably the Coast Guard and the Federal Aviation Administration, have major in-house efforts for acquisition oversight. It does not appear to the Committee as though this additional layer has added to the quality of the decisions made by those agencies, nor is the Committee aware of any formal oversight reviews which have resulted in cost savings or procurement efficiencies. Other costs.--The Committee is reducing funding for other costs by $1,000,000. The administration had requested a 34- percent increase in this line item (from $10,226,000 in fiscal year 1996 to $13,745,000 in 1997). The Committee's reduction is associated with a cut for information technology and support. It appears to the Committee that the Office of the Secretary has spent considerable sums in both hardware and personnel for developing a localized area network for the office, but has still not decided on the configuration of the best possible system, and is currently running four different types of operations, some of which have very recently experienced significant down time. Given the funding that has been provided in the past, it does not appear to the Committee that the computerization of the Office of the Secretary, which serves a generally administrative function, should have these difficulties in the information technology area. The Committee has made the reduction in the hope that greater focus will be put on this area, and that better decisions will be made about the final design and configuration of the localized area network system. Bill Language Electronic tariff filing.--The Committee has included bill language which was also included by the House which permits the Office of the Secretary to credit to this account $1,000,000 in user fees to support the electronic tariff filing system. Office of Civil Rights Appropriations, 1996.................................... $6,554,000 Budget estimate, 1997................................... 5,574,000 House allowance......................................... 5,574,000 Committee recommendation 5,574,000 The Office of Civil Rights is responsible for advising the Secretary on civil rights and equal employment opportunity matters, formulating civil rights policies and procedures for the operating administrations, investigating claims that small businesses were denied certification or improperly certified as disadvantaged business enterprises, and overseeing the Department's conduct of its civil rights responsibilities and making final determinations on civil rights complaints. In addition, the Civil Rights Office is responsible for enforcing laws and regulations which prohibit discrimination in federally operated and federally assisted transportation programs. In fiscal year 1995, the management of internal civil rights activities was consolidated in OST with transfer authority provided in the ``Salaries and expenses'' account. In fiscal year 1996, a separate appropriation funded all internal civil rights activities in the Department. The Committee has provided a total of $5,574,000 for the Office of Civil Rights, which will support a personnel level of 76 full-time equivalents. Transportation Planning, Research, and Development Appropriations, 1996.................................... $8,220,000 Budget estimate, 1997................................... 7,919,000 House allowance......................................... 3,000,000 Committee recommendation 4,158,000 The Office of the Secretary performs those research activities and studies which can more effectively or appropriately be conducted at the departmental level. This research effort supports the planning, research and development activities, and systems development needed to assist the Secretary in the formulation of national transportation policies. The program is carried out primarily through contracts with other Federal agencies, educational institutions, nonprofit research organizations, and private firms. The Committee has reduced the administration's request by $3,761,000. This recommended level would reduce the administration's request in the following areas: -$250,000 for funding related to planned trade promotion related to the continuation of expanding and supporting the sale of U.S. goods abroad; -$1,000,000, as recommended by the House, which deletes funding for the development of GPS augmentation; and -$2,511,000 associated with the further development of the transportation automated procurement system [TAPS]. As observed by the House, the pilot test program for TAPS has yet to be completed, and it appears as though the funding requested may be premature at this time. Transportation Administrative Service Center Limitation, 1996........................................ ($103,149,000) Budget estimate, 1997................................................... House allowance......................................... (124,812,000) Committee recommendation (124,812,000) The Transportation Administrative Service Center [TASC] will provide a business operation fund for DOT to provide a wide range of administrative services to the Department and other customers. TASC will function as an entrepreneurial and self-sufficient entity and providing competitive quality services responsive to customer needs. The TASC will be governed by a Board of Directors composed of customer agencies, operating in a competitive business like environment. The TASC will present proposed operating and financial plans to the Board at the beginning of each fiscal year. Once the Board has approved those plans the TASC will provide cost-effective products and services to its full customer base. The Director of TASC will provide quarterly performance and financial reports to the Board, will make recommendations for changes to the approved plans and will be responsible for the day-to-day management of the TASC. DOT administrations must procure consolidated administrative services from the TASC unless a financial analysis of the services demonstrates that it is more cost beneficial to the Department as a whole--not to an individual operating entity alone--to change the nature of the service delivery (to consolidate a service or to decentralize a service). TASC services are being marketed to customers outside DOT to provide greater economies of scale, thus reducing costs to individual customers. TASC services include: --Functions currently in DOT's working capital fund [WCF]; --Office of the Secretary (OST] personnel, procurement and information technology support operations, currently financed in the OST Salaries and Expenses [S&E] appropriation; --Systems development staff, as well as central design functions for transportation automated procurement system [TAPS] and the dockets management system [DMS], currently financed in the Transportation Planning, Research and Development [TPR&D] appropriation; --Operations of the consolidated departmental dockets facilities; and --Certain departmental services and administrative operations such as, human resources management programs, transit fare subsidy payments, employee wellness including substance awareness and testing, and the Office of Hearings, currently financed by reimbursable agreements between OST and the operating administrations [OA]. All of the services of the TASC will be financed through customer reimbursements, to the extent possible, on a fee-for- service basis. The Committee concurs with the House's direction regarding the hiring of transportation administrative service center staff in fiscal year 1997. Full-time equivalent personnel for similar activities in fiscal year 1995 was 287; in 1996, 299. The Department requested a total of 330 FTE's for fiscal year 1997, which the Committee deems excessive at this time. Payments to Air Carriers (liquidation of contract authorization) (airport and airway trust fund) Appropriations, 1996.................................... ($22,600,000) Budget estimate, 1997................................... (21,922,000) House allowance......................................... (10,000,000) Committee recommendation (25,900,000) The Secretary of Transportation administers the section 419 Subsidy Program, which was created as part of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. Subsidy under this program is paid to airlines, primarily commuter carriers, to support the provision of essential air service to points that would not be served but for the subsidy. The budget proposed eliminating all communities within 70 miles of an FAA-designated small, medium, or large hub airport. Many points are located in remote rural areas: 57 of 69 communities served by the Essential Air Service Program are more than 100 highway miles from the nearest small, medium, or large hub airport. Twenty-six more communities are located in Alaska, where, in all but two cases, year-round road access does not exist. Recognizing the critical importance of EAS service to these communities, the Committee intends that service in Alaska not be reduced. Without air service, such communities would be further isolated from the Nation's economic centers. Moreover, businesses are typically interested in locating in areas that have convenient access to scheduled air service. Loss of service would seriously hamper small communities' ability to attract new business or even to retain those they now have, resulting in further strain on local economies and loss of jobs. The Committee recommends a liquidation of contract authorization of $25,900,000 for fiscal year 1997 payments to air carriers which is the same as the limitation on obligations. limitation on obligations The Committee recommends an obligation limitation of $25,900,000, which is $3,978,000 above the administration's request. Under the Committee's recommended level, funding would be provided for all those points currently receiving service. The amount recommended by the Committee would include the following points: FISCAL YEAR 1997 EAS BUDGET PROJECTIONS \1\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Estimated Average daily mileage to enplanements nearest hub at EAS point Current annual Subsidy per States/communities (small, (year ending subsidy rates passenger medium, or March 31, (May 1, 1996) large) 1995) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arizona: Kingman..................................... 103 10.5 $94,663 $14.40 Page........................................ 274 23.3 129,560 8.87 Prescott.................................... 103 37.8 94,663 4.00 Arkansas: El Dorado/Camden............................ 108 11.1 474,453 68.15 Harrison.................................... 139 10.0 775,862 124.10 Jonesboro................................... 71 10.5 474,453 71.98 California: Crescent City............................... 233 15.2 151,450 15.91 Merced...................................... 118 22.1 182,121 13.14 Visalia..................................... 202 17.0 182,121 17.16 Colorado: Cortez...................................... 253 27.0 92,976 5.49 Lamar....................................... 162 4.4 190,987 69.93 Hawaii: Kamuela................................. 39 5.6 215,361 61.30 Iowa: Ottumwa................................... 92 5.9 268,410 72.64 Kansas: Dodge City.................................. 156 14.9 113,693 12.19 Garden City................................. 209 25.4 190,987 12.01 Goodland.................................... 190 3.0 190,987 102.79 Great Bend.................................. 116 6.0 113,693 30.24 Hays........................................ 175 16.6 113,693 10.92 Liberal/Guymon.............................. 162 10.5 190,987 28.95 Topeka...................................... 76 22.9 102,362 7.13 Maine: Augusta/Waterville \2\...................... 71 21.5 288,516 42.92 Bar Harbor.................................. 164 16.9 259,243 24.57 Rockland.................................... 79 14.8 259,243 28.02 Minnesota: Fairmont.................................... 153 3.9 247,771 100.39 Fergus Falls................................ 185 13.5 146,508 17.38 Mankato..................................... 75 5.1 247,771 77.04 Missouri: Cape Girardeau.............................. 133 20.4 164,027 12.85 Fort Leonard Wood........................... 130 14.5 196,606 21.69 Kirksville.................................. 158 8.5 224,382 42.24 Montana: Glasgow..................................... 279 6.4 303,956 76.07 Glendive.................................... 223 2.7 511,909 308.19 Havre....................................... 251 4.9 439,972 143.41 Lewiston.................................... 129 3.7 439,972 189.32 Miles City.................................. 145 3.2 511,909 257.76 Sidney...................................... 273 7.2 511,909 113.86 Wolf Point.................................. 295 4.7 303,956 103.70 Nebraska: Alliance.................................... 242 2.7 346,863 203.68 Chadron..................................... 301 2.7 346,863 207.33 Hastings.................................... 160 2.8 317,496 183.95 Kearney..................................... 186 10.1 317,496 50.04 McCook...................................... 259 3.3 657,724 322.73 Nevada: Ely..................................... 236 7.4 508,759 109.74 New Mexico: Alamogordo/Holloman AFB..................... 92 12.7 166,705 20.91 Clovis...................................... 106 15.0 200,332 21.31 Silver City/Hurley/Deming................... 163 11.2 263,458 37.62 New York: Massena..................................... 149 20.5 198,810 15.51 Ogdensburg.................................. 127 10.0 198,810 31.72 North Dakota: Devils Lake................................. 403 12.4 208,119 26.81 Dickinson................................... 313 11.9 141,502 18.95 Jamestown................................... 304 10.3 208,119 32.20 Oklahoma: Enid........................................ 91 12.0 301,400 40.28 Ponca City.................................. 88 13.7 301,400 35.24 Pennsylvania: Oil City/Franklin................. 91 27.0 89,916 5.32 South Dakota: Brookings................................... 211 5.6 247,771 70.61 Mitchell.................................... 245 3.6 247,771 110.32 Yankton..................................... 159 9.0 268,875 47.78 Texas: Brownwood................................ 153 7.1 372,426 83.58 Utah: Cedar City.................................. 257 19.1 292,882 24.55 Moab........................................ 241 6.0 367,713 98.69 Vernal...................................... 171 19.2 194,466 16.18 Virginia: Staunton.............................. 108 31.4 188,050 9.58 Washington: Ephrata/Moses Lake.................. 122 26.3 177,628 10.80 West Virginia: Beckley..................................... 186 12.0 137,229 18.25 Princeton/Bluefield......................... 145 15.6 137,229 14.09 Wyoming: Worland................................ 164 8.3 145,239 27.86 --------------------------------------------------------------- Subtotal of long-term non-Alaska rates.... .............. .............. 16,952,183 .............. Long-term Alaska rates.......................... .............. .............. 2,058,412 .............. Six Mesa communities............................ .............. .............. 1,000,000 .............. Fort Leonard Wood............................... .............. .............. 100,000 .............. Kamuela......................................... .............. .............. 80,000 .............. Staunton........................................ .............. .............. 40,000 .............. Moab............................................ .............. .............. 125,000 .............. Commuter safety rule............................ .............. .............. 144,405 .............. Rate increases and hold-ins..................... .............. .............. 3,645,140 .............. --------------------------------------------------------------- Total..................................... .............. .............. 24,145,140 .............. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The above list of communities is based on currently available data, and is subject to change for a number of reasons. Subsidy rates change as their 2-year rate terms expire throughout the year. In addition, air carriers submit passenger traffic data on a quarterly basis. Changes in both subsidy rates and traffic levels will, of course, change subsidy-per-passenger calculations. Further, some communities currently receiving subsidy-free service may require subsidy in the future while some currently subsidized communities may attain profitability and no longer require subsidy. Finally, hub designations are recalculated annually and published by the FAA in the Airport Activities Statistics. \2\ Enplanements based on less than 1 full year's passenger data annualized. Under the administration's proposal the following points would no longer be eligible for subsidy. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Enplanements Estimated per day at EAS States/communities mileage to Small hub or point (year Current annual nearest hub jet ending March subsidy rate 31, 1995) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arkansas: Hot Springs........................... 54 S 14.9 $374,739 New Hampshire: Keene............................ 56 S 7.2 312,202 Alabama: Anniston.................................... 61 S 8.5 494,816 Tuscaloosa.................................. 61 S 32.1 128,361 Vermont: Rutland................................ 67 S 10.4 312,202 New York: Watertown............................. 69 S 15.8 132,540 --------------------------------------------------------------- Total subsidy............................. .............. .............. .............. 1,754,860 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Committee recommends a funding level to accommodate the points listed above. Slot access.--Under 49 U.S.C. 41714(a)(2), the Secretary is given authority to provide for additional essential air service at slot-controlled airports by exemption, ``unless such an exemption would significantly increase operational delays.'' The recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Mesa Air Group v. Department of Transportation (No. 98-1017) has limited the power of the Secretary to compel commuter airlines to provide essential air service at reduced levels without revising their subsidy contracts. In some cases, however, it may be possible to maintain and improve essential air services without significantly increasing funding requirements by providing for additional exemptions under the Secretary's existing powers and to improve service to nonhub cities as well. Where that is the case, the Secretary is directed to make the fullest possible use of those powers. In order to minimize the risk that such exemptions would increase operational delays, the Secretary should consider various options, including allowing changes in slot timing which do not increase the total number of slots. Such a step could be facilitated, for example, by combining essential air service slots with the pool of slots reserved at O'Hare Airport for military operations in a way that would increase the Department's flexibility with regard to the time of day assigned to essential air service slots. Changes in the time of day essential air service flights are operated can significantly affect subsidy costs. The Secretary is also directed to use exemption authority to improve service to nonhub airports where significant improvements can be achieved. This directive is limited to O'Hare International Airport and aircraft carrying less than 60 passengers. Payments to Air Carriers (rescission on contract authorization) (airport and airway trust fund) Rescission, 1996........................................ -$16,000,000 Budget estimate, 1997 \1\............................... -16,678,000 House allowance......................................... -28,600,000 Committee recommendation................................ -12,700,000 \1\ Consistent with the budget proposal, contract authority previously enacted is proposed to be rescinded. The House has included bill language which would rescind $28,600,000 of contract authority funding for the payments to air carriers program, because the fully authorized level of $38,600,000 in contract authority would not be available under the House's proposed $10,000,000 limitation on obligations. Under the Senate proposal only $12,700,000 of the contract authority would be unused and is, therefore, recommended for rescission. Payments to Air Carriers (Rescission) Rescission, 1996........................................ -$6,786,971 Budget estimate, 1997................................... -1,133,373 House allowance......................................... -1,133,000 Committee recommendation -1,133,000 The amount proposed for rescission represents balances from prior years. The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, section 419, included a subsidy program to ensure scheduled air service to specified communities. Prior to fiscal year 1992, funding for this subsidy was provided from the ``General fund'' account. Starting in fiscal year 1992, this program has been funded from the ``Payments to air carriers trust fund'' account. For the past several years, balances have been carried forward in the ``General fund'' account. These balances are no longer required as the program is now funded from the trust fund account. Rental Payments Appropriations, 1996.................................... $135,200,000 Budget estimate, 1997 \1\............................... 137,581,000 House allowance......................................... 127,447,000 Committee recommendation................................ 132,500,000 \1\ Rental payments for the FHWA are separately budgeted but reimbursed to this account. Rental payments to the General Services Administration [GSA] are included as a separate line-item appropriation in the bill. Overall, the administration has requested a 1.8-percent increase in the general fund appropriation for rental payments. The Committee has provided an appropriation of $132,500,000 for rental payments in fiscal year 1997, a 2-percent reduction from the 1996 level, plus $17,192,000 to be paid by reimbursement from the highway trust fund for a total of $149,692,000. Funding for rental payments has been held to the fiscal year 1996 level. The Committee generally concurs with the House's observation that, given the downsizing in the Department of Transportation (for which the Department should be commended), increased rental payments should not be necessary if the consolidation of space is properly managed. As observed by the House, the recent renovations necessary at the Nassif Building present an opportunity for the Department to reorganize its office space to better achieve savings in fiscal year 1997. The Committee expects that the Department will be able to reduce its space utilization rates, and thereby release excess space to the General Services Administration. GSA RENTAL PAYMENTS \1\ [Dollars and square feet in thousands] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year 1995 enacted Fiscal year 1996 Fiscal year 1997 request \2\ Fiscal year projected \3\ ------------------------- Administration -------------------------- 1995 GSA -------------------------- Funding Square feet billings Funding Square feet Funding Square feet -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Federal Highway Administration............................... [$18,044] [987] [$16,388] [$17,192] [1,060] [$18,225] [1,063] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration............... 4,716 155 4,278 4,393 219 4,438 207 Federal Railroad Administration.............................. 3,363 135 2,979 3,094 160 3,192 160 Federal Transit Administration............................... 3,332 109 3,078 3,237 151 3,350 144 Federal Aviation Administration.............................. 75,820 4,374 68,653 69,743 4,223 69,550 4,189 U.S. Coast Guard............................................. 42,281 2,347 39,710 40,644 2,564 38,595 2,486 St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation.................. 181 6 163 195 9 193 9 Research and Special Programs Administration................. 2,378 77 2,217 2,039 102 2,270 102 Office of the Inspector General.............................. 2,579 94 2,207 2,267 113 2,479 111 Office of the Secretary of Transportation.................... 9,679 1,440 12,627 12,942 614 13,013 597 Bureau of Transportation Statistics.......................... 90 3 161 314 16 501 18 OST--rental payments to GSA.................................. [144,419] ........... [136,074] [138,868] [8,171] [137,581] ........... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal............................................... 144,419 8,740 136,074 138,868 8,171 137,581 8,023 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rescissions.............................................. (7,445) ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... Federal Highway Administration............................... 18,044 987 16,389 17,192 1,060 18,225 1,063 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total, Department of Transportation (excludes MarAd)... 155,018 9,727 152,463 156,060 9,231 155,806 9,086 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Enacted as a single account under the Office of the Secretary of Transportation. The budgets proposes appropriations language which directs the reimbursement of FHWA GSA rent from FHWA LGOE account to the consolidated account. \2\ Fiscal year 1995 Office of the Secretary of Transportation funding of $9,679,000 reflects a $3,000,000 credit for rate reductions for all administrations headquarters space as reported to Congress by GSA. However, each administration received their share of the credit on the actual bills. \3\ Fiscal year 1996 requirements are best represented by the projected billings. There is no distribution by mode of the enacted amounts of $152,885,000 and 8.58 million square feet because they are less than our existing inventory. An increase in square footage for most modes over the fiscal year 1995 enacted level is due to the redistribution of each mode's share of headquarters parking from OST to the mode. In total there is an overall reduction in square feet. Minority Business Resource Center Program Appropriations, 1996.................................... $1,900,000 Budget estimate, 1997................................... 1,900,000 House allowance......................................... 1,900,000 Committee recommendation 1,900,000 Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization [OSDBU]/Minority Business Resource Center [MBRC].--The OSDBU/ MBRC provides assistance in obtaining short-term working capital and bonding for disadvantaged, minority, and women- owned businesses [DBE/MBE/WBE's]. In fiscal year 1997, the short-term loan program will focus on the lending of working capital to DBE/MBE/WBE's for transportation-related projects in order to strengthen their competitive and productive capabilities. Since fiscal year 1993, the loan program has been a separate line item appropriation, which reflects the President's budget proposal, which segregated such activities in response to changes made by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990. The limitation on direct loans under the Minority Business Resource Center is at the administration's requested level of $15,000,000. The Department is projecting that the authorized loan level of $15,000,000 will be reached in fiscal years 1996 and 1997. The program provides a valuable source of working capital for minority businesses to manage their transportation-related contracts. Of the funds appropriated $1,500,000 covers the direct subsidy costs for loans not to exceed $15,000,000; and, $400,000 is for administrative expenses to carry out the Direct Loan Program. Minority Business Outreach Appropriations, 1996.................................... $2,900,000 Budget estimate, 1997................................... 2,900,000 House allowance......................................... 2,900,000 Committee recommendation 2,900,000 This appropriation provides contractual support to assist minority business firms, entrepreneurs, and venture groups in securing contracts and subcontracts arising out of projects that involve Federal spending. It also provides support to historically black and Hispanic colleges. Separate funding is requested by the administration since this program provides grants and contract assistance that serves DOT-wide goals and not just OST purposes. General Provisions Political and Presidential appointees.--The Committee has included a provision in the bill (sec. 305), which is similar to general provisions that have been included in previous appropriations acts, which limits the number of political and Presidential appointees within the Department of Transportation. The Committee is recommending that the ceiling for fiscal year 1997 be 107 personnel, which is the same as the House recommendation. Advisory committees.--The Committee has included a general provision (sec. 331) similar to that recommended by the House which would limit the amount of funds that could be used for the expenses of advisory committees utilized by the Department of Transportation. The limitation specified is $1,050,000, which is $200,000 above that enacted in fiscal year 1996. Transportation administrative service center.--The Committee is recommending a general provision (sec. 321) which was recommended by the House to limit the amounts for the transportation administrative service center to $114,812,000. This limitation will be imposed on a pro rata basis across all of the agencies within the Department of Transportation, but does not pertain to nondepartment entities. Rental payments.--The Committee has included a new general provision (sec. 326) which provides the Secretary the authority to transfer funds out of the salaries and expenses accounts of the various agencies into the ``Rental payments'' account. Such transfers are only to be used to cover space, utility, and ancillary charges imposed by the General Services Administration, and are to cover only those expenses which are in excess of the specific rental payment ($149,692,000) provided in the bill. Employee buyouts.--The Committee has included a general provision which allows the Department of Transportation to provide employees with buyouts. The Department has made good progress in meeting the fiscal year 1999 ``National Performance Review'' [NPR] targets regarding employment. On May 31, 1996, the Department had achieved a 25-percent reduction in the NPR targeted positions, the halfway point under the NPR plan. Most of this can be attributed to the Department's ability to offer buyouts. The Department's nonbuyout attrition rate is slightly more than 3 percent. Therefore, achieving the remaining 25 percent of the target is going to be more difficult unless the Department has the authority and the option to offer employee buyouts. Without such an option, it is likely that the Department would have to revert to involuntary separations in order to achieve its targeted goals. Given the employee time in service, many employees in the targeted areas of the Department of Transportation will be reaching retirement eligibility, and the buyout option may be a good incentive for employees to retire earlier and assist the Department in meeting the NPR targets. --U.S. Coast Guard.--The additional buyout authority will allow the agency to accommodate planned reorganization such as the relocation of the Electronics Engineering Center in Wildwood, NJ; phase II of the Governors Island shutdown; completion of the reorganization of the Office of Marine Safety; and the security and environmental office reorganization. --Federal Railroad Administration.--Due to the numerous issues surrounding railroad safety, the Committee feels that additional buyouts in this area will also be of great assistance. For example, the FRA has not hired up to its allocated ceiling in the safety inspector occupation work force. Since, as attrition occurs, these positions will only be filled on a 1-for-1 basis, reductions would have to be taken elsewhere within FRA if more than the attrited positions were to be filled. Consequently, buyouts are a necessary tool to reach overall FRA reductions, as well as hiring up to its allocated ceiling in the specific area of safety inspector work force. --Office of the Secretary.--With few exceptions, the majority of the Office of the Secretary's employees are considered headquarters personnel. Additionally, departmental budget, accounting, personnel, and acquisition areas are administered in the office, so that it has a disproportionately high concentration of targeted occupations. In an effort to streamline and restructure this office while still offering necessary services to the public and its operating agencies, the Office of the Secretary needs the added flexibility of buyouts to meet the NPR targets assigned to them. Bonus and award payments.--The Department of Transportation has budgeted $25,961,904 for performance awards for all employee levels. All of the bonus and award payments are discretionary. The Committee has included language limiting the allowable Department bonuses and awards to the amounts depicted below. The total amount recommended for each agency versus the 1997 budget request is depicted below. The Committee has included a general provision in the bill which limits funds for employee bonuses and awards to $25,448,300. PERFORMANCE AWARDS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year Agency Fiscal year 1997 budget Committee 1996 limitation estimate recommendation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office of the Secretary...................................... $500,037 \1\ $407,000 $407,000 Coast Guard.................................................. 1,713,461 1,716,500 1,713,500 Federal Aviation Administration.............................. 20,897,137 20,976,888 20,800,000 Federal Highway Administration............................... 1,298,544 1,341,652 1,200,000 Bureau of Transportation Statistics.......................... 22,913 66,950 30,090 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration............... 303,738 335,000 303,000 Federal Railroad Administration.............................. 306,729 317,000 302,000 Federal Transit Administration............................... 238,945 220,714 220,710 St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation.................. 48,814 50,000 48,000 Research and Special Programs Administration \2\............. 139,468 144,200 139,000 Office of Inspector General.................................. 185,289 186,000 185,000 Revenue for Presidential rank awards......................... 220,000 ............... ............... Surface Transportation Board................................. ............... 200,000 100,000 -------------------------------------------------- Total.................................................. 25,875,075 25,961,904 25,448,300 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Includes $120,000 for the Transportation Administrative Service Center. \2\ Excludes Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. Other Reductions in fiscal year 1996 appropriations.--In fiscal year 1996, reductions were made to a number of accounts due to limitations or reductions imposed in various areas, such as the working capital fund, performance awards, administrative and consolidation savings, and rescissions required by the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-134). In the Senate Committee report, each account head shows the amount originally appropriated in Public Law 104-50, before the various and sundry reductions were made. The table below depicts the amount of funds originally appropriated for each of the accounts, and the reductions required. REDUCTIONS IN FISCAL YEAR 1996 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION APPROPRIATIONS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Awards GP 349 Administrative Section 31002 Net Account Enacted WCF GP 327 \1\ \1\ GP 335 \1\ Rescission \1\ rescission \2\ appropriation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office of the Secretary: Salaries and expenses....... $56,189,000 $593,389 $9,963 $1,762,000 ............... $78,000 $53,745,648 Transportation planning, research, and development.. 8,220,000 ............... 1,000 300,000 ............... 13,000 7,906,000 Office of Civil Rights...... 6,554,000 ............... 2,000 925,000 ............... 9,000 5,618,000 Minority business outreach.. 2,900,000 ............... ............... ............... ............... 4,000 2,896,000 Working capital fund........ 103,149,000 (7,500,000) (6,000) ............... ............... ............... 95,643,000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subtotal.................. ............... 593,389 12,963 2,987,000 ............... 104,000 ................ ======================================================================================================================= U.S. Coast Guard: Operating expenses (excluding $300,000,000 transferred from DOD)...... 2,278,991,000 1,733,000 ............... 195,000 ............... 1,133,000 2,275,930,000 Acquisition, construction, and improvements........... 362,375,000 ............... ............... ............... ............... \3\ (500,000) 362,375,000 Retired pay................. 582,022,000 ............... ............... ............... ............... 2,500,000 579,522,000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subtotal.................. ............... 1,733,000 ............... 195,000 ............... 3,633,000 ................ ======================================================================================================================= Federal Aviation Administration: Operations (general and trust) \4\................. 4,645,712,000 2,271,888 720,112 ............... ............... ............... 4,642,720,000 Facilities and equipment.... 1,934,883,000 ............... ............... ............... \5\ $13,590,000 \6\ 3,100,000 1,918,193,000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subtotal.................. ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ............... ................ ======================================================================================================================= Federal Highway Administration: Motor carrier safety grants (obligation limitation).... 77,225,000 ............... ............... ............... ............... 1,000 77,224,000 Limitation on general operating expenses......... 509,660,000 (1,658,000) ............... (14,003,000) ............... (756,000) 509,660,000 Federal-aid Highways (obligation limitation) \7\ 17,550,000,000 1,692,073 4,427 14,192,000 ............... 1,146,000 17,532,965,500 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subtotal.................. ............... 1,692,073 4,427 14,192,000 ............... 1,147,000 ................ ======================================================================================================================= National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: Operations and research (general).................. 73,316,570 232,947 103 1,442,550 ............... 140,000 71,500,970 Operations and research (trust).................... 51,884,430 161,950 ............... 1,002,450 ............... 66,000 50,654,030 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subtotal.................. ............... 394,897 103 2,445,000 ............... 206,000 ................ ======================================================================================================================= Federal Railroad Administration: Office of the Administrator. 14,018,000 78,000 2,000 274,000 ............... \3\ (28,000) 13,664,000 Railroad Safety............. 49,919,000 46,900 4,100 240,000 ............... 70,000 49,558,000 Railroad research and development................ 24,550,000 9,000 ............... 426,000 ............... \8\ 34,000 24,081,000 Northeast corridor program.. 115,000,000 ............... ............... ............... ............... 6,000 114,994,000 Next generation high-speed rail....................... 19,205,000 1,000 ............... 53,000 ............... \9\ 24,000 19,127,000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subtotal.................. ............... 134,900 6,100 993,000 ............... 134,000 ................ ======================================================================================================================= Federal Transit Administration: Administrative expenses..... 42,000,000 377,857 143 900,000 ............... ............... 40,722,000 Formula grants (general and trust) \4\................. 2,052,925,000 ............... ............... 950,000 ............... 147,000 2,051,828,000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subtotal.................. ............... 377,857 143 1,850,000 ............... 147,000 ................ ======================================================================================================================= St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation: Operations and maintenance.................... 10,150,000 16,000 ............... 570,000 ............... 15,000 9,549,000 ======================================================================================================================= Research and Special Programs Administration: Research and special Programs................... 23,937,000 143,000 2,000 242,000 ............... ............... 23,550,000 Pipeline Safety............. 31,448,000 81,000 1,000 131,000 ............... 65,000 31,170,000 Emergency Preparedness Grants (limitation)........ 8,890,000 ............... ............... 9,000 ............... ............... ................ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subtotal.................. ............... 224,000 3,000 382,000 ............... 65,000 ................ ======================================================================================================================= Office of Inspector General: Salaries and expenses.......... 40,238,000 67,996 4 1,386,000 ............... 57,000 38,727,000 ======================================================================================================================= Bureau of Transportation Statistics \7\................. 2,200,000 (34,073) (4,427) (189,000) ............... 3,000 2,197,000 ======================================================================================================================= Surface Transportation Board: Salaries and expen- ses....... 8,421,000 ............... ............... ............... ............... 7,000 8,414,000 ======================================================================================================================= Total reductions, Department of Transportation........... ............... 7,506,000 746,852 25,000,000 13,590,000 \10\ 8,618,000 ................ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Reductions due to Public Law 104-50. \2\ Reductions due to Public Law 104-134. \3\ From unobligated balance. \4\ Reductions taken from general fund appropriation. \5\ An additional $46,410,000 rescission from unobligated balances for a total of $60,000,000. \6\ An additional $5,711,000 rescisssion from unobligated balances for a total of $8,811,000. \7\ BTS reductions in parentheses included under Federal-aid highways. \8\ An additional $5,000 rescission from unobligated balances for a total of $39,000. \9\ An additional $2,000 rescission from unobligated balances for a total of $26,000. \10\ An additional $6,426,000 unobligated balances (footnotes 3, 6, 8, and 9 above) and $162,000 from MARAD ocean freight differential for a Department of Transportation total of $15,026,000. Asset sales.--The Coast Guard and FAA, like many other agencies, are reorganizing and downsizing while providing critical services to the public at less cost. Both the Senate and House of Representatives, in their respective versions of the concurrent resolution on the budget for 1996, indicated clear support for seeking a change in the rules that currently do not allow agencies to obtain budgetary credit for the sale of governmental assets. The Committee believes that the Coast Guard, the FAA, and the Government as a whole, would benefit substantially if allowed budgetary credit for property they expect to excess as part of downsizing efforts. The President's fiscal year 1997 budget includes asset sales in the Coast Guard to be credited as an offsetting collection. Clearly, there is the potential for a very positive benefit if the Coast Guard and the FAA are permitted to receive credit for the value of excessed property. U.S. COAST GUARD Summary of Fiscal Year 1997 Program The U.S. Coast Guard, as it is known today, was established on January 28, 1915, through the merger of the Revenue Cutter Service and the Lifesaving Service. In 1939, the U.S. Lighthouse Service was transferred to the Coast Guard, followed by the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation in 1942. The Coast Guard has as its primary responsibilities the enforcement of all applicable Federal laws on the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; promotion of safety of life and property at sea; assistance to navigation; protection of the marine environment; and maintenance of a state of readiness to function as a specialized service in the Navy in time of war (14 U.S.C. 1, 2). The Committee recommends a total program level of $3,762,934,000 for the activities of the Coast Guard in fiscal year 1997. The following table summarizes the Committee's recommendations: [In thousands of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year Program 1996 enacted Fiscal year House Committee \1\ 1997 estimate allowance recommendations ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Operating expenses............................. \2\ 2,578,991 \3\ 2,637,850 2,609,100 \4\ 2,631,350 Acquisition, construction, and improvements.... 362,375 \5\ 411,600 \5\ 354,245 \6\ 395,060 Environmental compliance and restoration....... 21,000 25,000 21,000 23,000 Port safety development........................ 15,000 .............. .............. ............... Alteration of bridges.......................... 16,000 2,000 16,000 10,000 Retired pay.................................... 582,022 608,084 608,084 608,084 Reserve training............................... 62,000 65,890 65,890 65,890 Research, development, test, and evaluation.... 18,000 20,300 19,000 19,550 Boat safety.................................... 20,000 .............. 35,000 10,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Total.................................... 3,675,388 3,770,724 3,728,319 3,762,934 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Excludes reductions pursuant to sections 327 and 335 of Public Law 104-50 and section 31002 of Public Law 104-134. \2\ Includes $300,000,000 in Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1996. \3\ Includes $118,500,000 from defense discretionary funds. \4\ Includes $300,000,000 in Department of Defense appropriations. \5\ This amount would be reduced $20,000,000 under proposed asset sales. \6\ Includes $1,960,000 in reprogramming of prior-year funding. Operating Expenses ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- General Trust Total ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appropriations, 1996 \1\.................................. $2,533,991,000 $45,000,000 $2,578,991,000 Budget estimate, 1997 \2\................................. 2,612,850,000 25,000,000 2,637,850,000 House allowance........................................... 2,584,100,000 25,000,000 2,609,100,000 Committee recommendation \1\.............................. 2,606,350,000 25,000,000 2,631,350,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Includes $300,000,000 by transfer from the Department of Defense. \2\ Includes $118,500,000 from defense discretionary funds. The ``Operating expenses'' appropriation provides funds for the operation and maintenance of multipurpose vessels, aircraft, and shore units strategically located along the coasts and inland waterways of the United States and in selected areas overseas. The program activities of this appropriation fall into the following categories: Search and rescue.--One of its earliest and most traditional missions, the Coast Guard maintains a nationwide system of boats, aircraft, cutters, and rescue coordination centers on 24-hour alert. Aids to navigation.--To help mariners determine their location and avoid accidents, the Coast Guard maintains a network of manned and unmanned aids to navigation along our coasts and on our inland waterways, and operates radio stations in the United States and abroad to serve the needs of the armed services and marine and air commerce. Marine safety.--The Coast Guard insures compliance with Federal statutes and regulations designed to improve safety in the merchant marine industry and operates a recreational boating safety program. Marine environmental protection.--The primary objectives of this program are to minimize the dangers of marine pollution and to assure the safety of U.S. ports and waterways. Enforcement of laws and treaties.--The Coast Guard is the principal maritime enforcement agency with regard to Federal laws on the navigable waters of the United States and the high seas, including fisheries, drug smuggling, illegal immigration, and hijacking of vessels. Ice operations.--In the Arctic and Antarctic, Coast Guard icebreakers escort supply ships, support research activities and Department of Defense operations, survey uncharted waters, and collect scientific data. The Coast Guard also assists commercial vessels through ice-covered waters. Defense readiness.--During peacetime the Coast Guard maintains an effective state of military preparedness to operate as a service in the Navy in time of war or national emergency at the direction of the President. As such the Coast Guard has primary responsibility for the security of ports, waterways, and navigable waters up to 200 miles offshore. committee funding recommendation The Committee recommendation for Coast Guard operating expenses is $2,631,350,000, including $25,000,000 from the oilspill liability trust fund and $300,000,000 from the Defense appropriations bill for national security missions. [In thousands of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year 1996 Budget House Committee enacted request allowance recommendation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pay and allowances: Military pay and benefits............................ 1,206,924 1,225,850 1,225,850 1,225,850 Civilian pay and benefits............................ 176,833 180,221 180,221 180,221 Permanent change of station.......................... 58,513 57,871 57,871 57,871 Medical care and equipment........................... 119,966 117,938 117,938 117,938 Leased housing....................................... 14,900 15,976 15,976 15,976 Activitywide adjustments............................. ........... ........... ........... -3 ------------------------------------------------------ Total, pay and allowances.......................... 1,577,136 1,597,856 1,597,856 1,597,853 ====================================================== Depot level maintenance: Aircraft............................................. 139,456 144,890 144,890 144,890 Electronics.......................................... 31,746 35,276 35,276 35,276 Shore facilities..................................... 93,671 96,163 96,163 96,163 Vessels.............................................. 97,416 99,915 99,915 99,915 Program reestimate................................... ........... ........... -14,307 .............. ------------------------------------------------------ Total, depot level maintenance..................... 362,289 376,244 361,937 376,244 ====================================================== Operations and support: Area operations and support: Cutters: Medium endurance (WMEC)...................... 16,922 17,999 17,999 17,999 High endurance (WHEC)........................ 10,917 11,839 11,839 11,839 Polar WAGB's................................. 2,047 2,065 2,065 2,065 Area offices..................................... 11,416 12,307 12,307 12,307 Maintenance and logistics com- mands............ 123,885 123,413 121,663 123,413 Communication stations........................... 3,306 3,586 3,586 3,586 District operations and support: District offices................................. 53,237 57,726 54,037 55,880 Groups/bases..................................... 67,307 75,170 75,170 75,170 Combined group/air station....................... 9,370 10,010 10,010 10,010 Air stations..................................... 44,553 45,726 45,726 45,726 Marine safety offices............................ 8,563 9,992 9,992 9,992 Long-range electronic navaids (Loran)........... 6,189 6,337 6,337 6,337 Cutters-WLB's and smaller; Mack- inaw........... 29,247 31,995 31,995 31,995 Vessel traffic service [VTS] systems............. 245 243 243 243 Ammunition and small arms............................ 4,667 4,667 2,667 3,500 ------------------------------------------------------ Total, operations and support...................... 391,871 413,075 405,636 410,062 ====================================================== Recruiting and training support: Recruiting........................................... 5,651 5,717 5,717 5,717 Training centers..................................... 26,243 26,531 26,531 26,531 Coast Guard Academy.................................. 12,579 12,685 12,685 12,685 Professional training and education.................. 24,162 23,496 21,496 22,496 ------------------------------------------------------ Total, recruiting and training support............. 68,635 68,429 66,429 67,429 ====================================================== Coast Guard-wide centralized services and support: Headquarters-managed units: Engineering Logistics Center..................... 7,868 7,931 7,931 7,931 Finance center................................... 4,764 4,840 4,840 4,840 Military pay and personnel center................ 1,202 1,221 1,221 1,221 Coast Guard yard................................. 1,902 1,929 1,929 1,929 National Strike Force............................ 2,744 2,870 2,870 2,870 National Pollution Funds Center.................. 1,190 1,209 1,209 1,209 COMDAC support facility.......................... 1,971 2,407 2,407 2,407 Air station Washington, DC....................... 917 932 932 932 Operations Systems Center........................ 6,894 7,005 7,005 7,005 Telecommunications/information systems command... 3,344 3,397 3,397 3,397 Navigation Center................................ 772 784 784 784 Intelligence Coordination Center................. 231 235 235 235 Electronics Engineering Center................... 4,225 6,630 6,630 5,325 Coast Guard Institute............................ 757 769 769 769 Research and Development Center.................. 433 440 440 440 Coast Guard Personnel Center..................... 808 821 821 821 National Maritime Center......................... 3,128 3,108 3,108 3,108 Headquarters......................................... 105,359 106,268 106,268 106,268 Centralized bill paying: Postal........................................... 6,674 6,181 6,181 6,181 FTS.............................................. 11,160 11,339 11,339 11,160 Federal employment compensation.................. 6,243 6,652 6,652 6,652 Unemployment compensation........................ 4,546 5,278 5,278 5,278 ------------------------------------------------------ Total, Coast Guard-wide centralized services and support................................... 177,132 182,246 182,246 180,762 ====================================================== Total, accountwide adjustments................. -3,061 ........... -5,004 -1,000 ====================================================== Total appropriation............................ 2,578,991 2,637,850 2,609,100 2,631,350 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note.--Fiscal year 1996 enacted and fiscal year 1997 Committee recommendation includes $300,000,000 provided by transfer from the Department of Defense. PAY AND ALLOWANCES Medical care and equipment.--The Committee has provided the full amount requested for medical care and equipment, which is the same as that provided by the House. The Committee feels that the Coast Guard has done a good job to keep its medical care and equipment line item under budget. In fact, this account has seen a slight decrease from the amount of resources required in fiscal year 1996. Activitywide adjustments.--The Committee has provided the requested amounts for each of the individual subactivities under the pay and allowances activity. However, to the overall account, the Committee is recommending a $3,000 activitywide cut which reflects a reduction from the bonuses and awards line item, which affects the Coast Guard accountwide. DEPOT LEVEL MAINTENANCE The Coast Guard request for $14,307,000 for nonrecurring maintenance funding is required to restore one-time streamlining costs for the Coast Guard's aeronautical, electronic, and civil engineering programs. In order to achieve the savings the Coast Guard needed in fiscal year 1997, much of the costs to execute the major streamlining initiatives had to be funded in fiscal year 1996, in large part by nonrecurring deferrals from depot-level maintenance accounts. These costs include civilian severance expenses, extraordinary personnel, and equipment reallocations, as well as the immediate facility modification and upgrades essential to accommodate streamlining relocation initiatives. The one-time funding request for fiscal year 1997 will allow for a timely completion of priority projects which affect the readiness availability of ships, aircraft, and other operational assets. Examples of deferred projects are the HH-60 helicopter main rotor blade tip cap retrofit project, small boat electronic equipment standardization, and Group North Bend underground storage tank replacement. Loss of these funds would force the beginning of a multiyear cycle of deferral to the detriment of efficient operational service deliveries. OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT Area operations and support Maintenance and logistics commands.--The Committee has provided the full amount requested for the maintenance and logistics commands, which is a $1,750,000 increase over the House allowance. Even at the fiscal year 1997 requested level, the funding provided by the Committee is slightly less than the fiscal year 1996 enacted level. A cut to the maintenance and logistics command category, which essentially manages and funds support activities for all Coast Guard units performing operational missions, would constitute an across-the-board cut to operational field units. District operations and support/district offices District offices.--The Committee has provided a total of $55,880,000 for district offices, which is $1,843,000 above the House's recommendation. The Committee believes that, even though the Coast Guard is in the process of eliminating two district offices as part of its overall streamlining plan, sufficient funding is necessary because the immediate savings will not be realized to the extent estimated under the House's funding level. The funding level provided is 5 percent above the fiscal year 1996 level, which is slightly below the 8- percent increase that was requested in the administration's budget. Ammunition and small arms The Committee has provided $3,500,000 for the ammunition and small arms subaccount, which is $833,000 more than that recommended by the House. The Committee understands that there has been some downsizing in the ammunition and small arms needs because of changes in the Coast Guard's military readiness plans. However, proper levels of ammunition and small arms maintenance are critical for accomplishing the Coast Guard's law enforcement mission and keeping Coast Guard personnel trained and qualified in safe operation of small arms. RECRUITING AND TRAINING SUPPORT The recruiting and training support category has several subsets, including recruiting, training centers (Yorktown, VA; Petaluma, CA; and Cape May, NJ), the Coast Guard Academy, and professional training and education. The Committee has provided $1,000,000 less than the amount requested. The Committee has, however, restored $1,000,000 back to the professional training and education activity which was reduced $2,000,000 in the House's recommendation. The Committee believes that the Coast Guard has done a good job in trying to hold costs down, and though its budget for professional training and education is sizable, at the $22,496,000 recommended by the Committee, further cuts are not necessary at this time. CENTRALIZED SERVICES AND SUPPORT The centralized services and support line item includes a number of individual activities. The Committee has provided $180,762,000 overall for centralized services and support, a reduction of $1,484,000 from the requested level (less than 1 percent). The reductions in this activity include a reduction of $179,000 from the FTS 2000 telecommunications request; and a $1,305,000 reduction from the electronics engineering center, but still provides a 26-percent increase over the fiscal year 1996 level for this subactivity. ACCOUNTWIDE ADJUSTMENTS Because of budget constraints, the Committee found it necessary to impose an accountwide adjustment for Coast Guard operations. The Committee agrees with the specific recommendation of the House, which includes a nonoperational travel reduction of $1,000,000. BILL LANGUAGE Employment reductions.--The Committee has included bill language, which is carried over from prior appropriations acts, which specifies that the Commandant shall reduce both military and civilian employment for the purpose of complying with Executive Order 12839. This language was also included by the House. National security.--The Committee's recommendation includes $300,000,000 transferred from the Department of Defense for Coast Guard support of national security activities. The Coast Guard plays a key role in support of military missions under the U.S. Atlantic and Southern Commands in support of drug interdiction missions, refugee and immigration support, and enforcement and joint military training. The Coast Guard is a cost-effective force which is multimissioned. Its ships, aircraft, shore units, and people have four primary roles: maritime safety, maritime law enforcement, marine environmental protection, and national defense. These roles are complementary and contribute to the Coast Guard's unique niche within the national security community. The value of the Coast Guard forces and their mission experience was clearly evident by their active participation in Operations Desert Shield/Storm in Iraq, and more recently, in operations restore/uphold democracy in Haiti. The Coast Guard is one of the five Armed Forces, and is a full partner on the joint national security team. To be a credible partner, the Coast Guard must maintain a high state of operational readiness. Many parts of the Coast Guard's budget contain funding requests that, if cut, would severely impair the Coast Guard's operational readiness and, therefore, its ability to meet national security commitments. GENERAL PROVISIONS Vessel traffic safety fairway, Santa Barbara/San Francisco.--The Committee has included a general provision (sec. 313) that would prohibit funds to plan, finalize, or implement regulations establishing a vessel traffic safety fairway which is less than 5 miles wide between the Santa Barbara vessel traffic separation scheme and the San Francisco vessel traffic separation scheme. This language has been included in previous appropriations bills, and was also included in the House's general provisions (sec. 313) bill language. Conveyance of lighthouse, Montauk Point, NY.--The Committee has struck the House's general provision (sec. 339) which would require the Secretary of Transportation to convey to the Montauk Historical Association the U.S. Government's interests in the light station Montauk Point, which is located in Montauk, NY. The House has incorporated by reference a provision of the Coast Guard Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 which passed the House of Representatives on May 9, 1995. The Committee believes that, since this legislation is in conference with the Senate's version of the Coast Guard Authorization Act, there is no need for inclusion of this general provision in the appropriations bill, and, therefore, has deleted the provision, which was not requested by the administration. OTHER Vessel traffic systems [VTS].--The Committee concurs with the House's direction that the Coast Guard should more fully examine the implementation costs associated with the vessel traffic service VTS 2000 program. Based on General Accounting Office reports, the costs of operating the vessel traffic system would approach approximately $65,000,000 a year, versus the current cost of almost $20,000,000. In addition, it will take significant capital resources to install the equipment in the currently envisioned VTS 2000 program. In light of the GAO's earlier report on VTS 2000 costs of $310,000,000 to establish and $65,000,000 to operate, the Committee emphatically directs the Coast Guard to review its plans for VTS, including the institution of user fees whereby users would pay the bill for the service provided. Given the budget situation, the Committee cannot support taking on new responsibilities where services are provided free to the users. The Committee believes it would be wise to study how this system could be developed through a public sector/private sector partnership. As each port is different, privatization may not be the proper model for all the ports in the Coast Guard's plans. However, given the success of the Los Angeles- Long Beach system, which is funded on fees based on size of ships, and is staffed by both civilians and Coast Guard personnel, it appears that this is an excellent model to study and possibly apply to the rest of the VTS 2000 ports. Marine Fire and Safety Association.--The Committee remains supportive of efforts by the Marine Fire and Safety Association [MFSA] to provide specialized fire fighting training and maintain an oilspill response contingency plan for the Columbia River. The Committee encourages the Secretary to provide funding for MFSA consistent with the authorization and directs the Secretary to provide $297,000 to continue efforts by the Maritime Fire and Safety Administration to provide specialized communications, fire fighting training and equipment, and to implement the oilspill response contingency plan for the Columbia River. Abandoned barges, Houston, TX.--The House has included $2,000,000 for the Coast Guard's removal of abandoned barges in the Houston ship channel and the San Jacinto River, and further directs that this funding is to be used only for that purpose. It does not appear to the Committee that an additional $2,000,000 has been included by the House for this activity and assumes that this money would need to come out of the regular operating expenses of the Coast Guard. The Committee takes exception to the earmarking of a specific amount of funds to be used exclusively for this purpose, and expects that the Coast Guard will, at its discretion, remove what abandoned barges in this area and in other areas of the country that it deems obstructions to navigation and as causing unsafe conditions. The Committee objects to earmarking a specific amount of funding for this purpose for one specific site over all others. The Committee directs the Coast Guard to identify alternatives for removal in consultation with the Army Corps of Engineers which is the Agency usually responsible for keeping harbors and ports navigable. Defense readiness.--Within the overall funding provided for drug interdiction activities ($328,000,000), the House has specifically earmarked funding of $34,000,000, based on a House Government Reform and Oversight Committee report. While the Committee may agree that the identified activities are of a high priority, it believes that the Commandant may take the House's recommendation under advisement, since it appears that several of the activities are outdated missions. However, it should be left to the Commandant's discretion how the drug interdiction funding is to be distributed, and, therefore, the Committee objects to the House's earmarking within this activity. Coast Guard auxiliary.--The House encouraged the Coast Guard to continue to provide adequate funding for auxiliary support, and was concerned about the adequacy of the President's $10,000,000 request. However, the Committee understands that the reduction of $1,500,000 from the fiscal year 1996 level in management funds associated with the auxiliary program is the result of business decisions resulting in reorganizations, reductions in overhead, and leveraging technology. Further, the Committee understands that the reduced request for fiscal year 1997 funding in no way results from a devaluation of, or reduction in the services provided by the Coast Guard auxiliary. The auxiliary's 35,000 volunteers provide a tremendous service to the recreational boating public nationwide. In 1995, the auxiliary saved about 400 lives, assisted another 20,000 people, and educated 330,000 people through boating education courses. In the Pacific Northwest region alone, they saved 15 lives, assisted another 800 people, and educated 22,000 people--including over 11,000 children. The Coast Guard auxiliary is an effective force multiplier for their parent services. Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- General Trust Total ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appropriations, 1996............................................ $329,875,000 $32,500,000 $362,375,000 Budget estimate, 1997........................................... 391,600,000 20,000,000 \1\411,600,000 House allowance................................................. 338,000,000 20,000,000 \2\ 358,000,00 0 Rescission.................................................. .............. .............. (3,755,000) Committee recommendation \3\.................................... 375,060,000 20,000,000 395,060,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Includes estimated receipts of $20,000,000 from sale of Coast Guard property in Wildwood, NJ. \2\ Excludes $29,600,000 in proposed asset sales. \3\ Includes $1,960,000 of reprogrammed prior year funds. This appropriation provides for the major acquisition, construction, and improvement of vessels, aircraft, shore units, and aids to navigation operated and maintained by the Coast Guard. Currently, the Coast Guard has in operation approximately 250 cutters, ranging in size from 65-foot tugs to 399-foot polar icebreakers, more than 2,000 boats, and an inventory of more than 200 helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft. The Coast Guard also operates approximately 600 stations, support and supply centers, communications facilities, and other shore units. The Coast Guard provides over 48,000 navigational aids--buoys, fixed aids, lighthouses, and radio navigational stations. committee recommendation The following table summarizes the Committee's programmatic recommendations: [In thousands of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year Fiscal year House program Committee 1996 enacted 1997 estimate level allowance recommendation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vessels..................................... 167,600 237,000 205,600 227,960 Aircraft.................................... 12,000 21,400 18,300 \1\ 19,400 Other equipment............................. 49,200 46,700 39,900 46,200 Shore facilities and aids to navigation..... 88,875 59,500 47,950 \2\ 54,500 Personnel and related support............... 44,700 47,000 46,250 47,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Total................................. 362,375 411,600 358,000 395,060 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Of this amount, $360,000 is from reprogramming prior-year funds. \2\ Of this amount, $1,600,000 is from reprogramming prior-year funds. vessels The Committee recommends $227,960,000 for vessel acquisition and improvement. The projected allocation of these funds is shown in the table below: VESSELS [In thousands of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year House Committee 1997 estimate allowance recommendation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Acquire vessels and equipment: Seagoing buoy tender [WLB] replacement...................... 59,500 50,000 59,000 Coastal buoy tender [WLM] replacement....................... 80,000 74,000 76,860 47-foot motor lifeboat [MLB] replacement project............ 26,000 26,000 26,000 82-foot WPB capability replacement.......................... 37,800 35,000 33,100 Follow-on for polar icebreaker replacement.................. 4,000 4,000 4,000 Buoy boat replacement project............................... 8,500 .............. 7,800 Survey and design--cutters and boats........................ 500 500 500 Configuration management.................................... 3,500 3,500 3,500 Surface search radar replacement project.................... 8,600 4,000 8,600 Motor surfboard [MSB] replacement........................... 1,100 1,100 1,100 Repair, renovate, or improve existing vessels and small boats: 210-foot medium-endurance cutter [WMEC], major maintenance availability [MMA]......................................... 2,500 2,500 2,500 Polar class icebreaker reliability improvement project [RIP] 5,000 5,000 5,000 ----------------------------------------------- Total (new program level)............................... 237,000 205,600 227,960 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Seagoing buoy tender [WLB] replacement.--The Coast Guard plans to replace its 50-year-old fleet of seagoing buoy tenders with up to 16 new tenders. The request of $59,500,000 for fiscal year 1997 is to pay for the award of the first production ship, and to cover additional costs such as the cost of change orders and product escalation for the third, fourth, and fifth option ships. According to recent estimates, the contract for the first production ship will be awarded late in fiscal year 1997. The House recommended $50,000,000 for this project. According to recent estimates, however, this amount by itself will not be enough for the Coast Guard to award the production contract in fiscal year 1997, even if the bids are received at the low end of the Government's cost estimates. Based on the estimate that this project will have some carryover at the end of fiscal year 1996, the Committee has reduced the fiscal year 1997 level by $500,000, which is $9,000,000 above the House's allowance. Coastal buoy tender [WLM] replacement.--The Committee has provided $76,860,000 for the coastal buoy tender replacement program. This program replaces the Coast Guard's existing 133- foot and 157-foot coastal buoy tenders with 14 new ships. The Coast Guard's request of $80,000,000 for fiscal year 1997 was to procure four new buoy tenders. Based on recent information on the 1997 spending plans, it appears that the Coast Guard should have $3,140,000 in unobligated carryovers that could be used in fiscal year 1997 against this request. Therefore, the Committee has reduced the funding level by that amount. The House had made a similar type of reduction to $74,000,000 based on a large unobligated balance in the account. Coastal patrol boat/82-foot WPB replacement.--The Committee has provided $33,100,000 for the coastal patrol boat replacement program, which is a $700,000 reduction from the amount requested for fiscal year 1997. This program would replace the 82-foot coastal patrol boats which are over 30 years old with 31 new boats. The request for fiscal year 1997 was to procure six new boats. However, in a review of the fiscal year 1997 spending plans, it appears as though the Coast Guard can only obligate $33,100,000 of its original fiscal year 1997 request. This is because the contractor's bid came in lower than originally estimated by the Coast Guard. Therefore, the Committee's reduction should not impair or slow this program. Buoy boat replacement project.--The Coast Guard had originally requested $8,500,000 in fiscal year 1997 to procure five new buoy boats. Based on review of the 1997 spending plans, it appears that the Coast Guard will have available in 1997 approximately $700,000 in unobligated carryovers that could be used for the five new boat procurements. Therefore, the Committee has reduced the request by that amount, and recommends a level of $7,800,000. The House allowance included no funding for this program, citing slippages in the program due to termination of a boat building contract last year, and believes that unobligated funds should be sufficient to maintain the program during fiscal year 1997. However, in order to stabilize the Coast Guard yard's work force so there will be no break in production, the Committee has provided funding at $7,800,000. aircraft For aircraft procurement, the Committee recommends $19,400,000. Of this amount, $360,000 is made available through reprogrammed resources. Funds for aircraft acquisitions are distributed as follows: AIRCRAFT [In thousands of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year House Committee 1997 estimate allowance recommendation \1\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Traffic alert and collision avoidance system [TCAS]--phase IV......................................................... 5,700 5,700 5,700 Global positioning system installation--phase VII........... 2,900 1,900 1,900 HC-130 engine conversion.................................... 8,800 6,800 7,800 HH-65A helicopter kapton rewiring........................... 2,000 3,500 2,000 HH-65A helicopter mission computer unit replacement......... 2,000 2,000 2,000 Asset sales \2\............................................. .............. -1,600 .................. --------------------------------------------------- Total................................................. 21,400 18,300 19,400 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Of this amount, $360,000 is from reprogramming of HH-65 gearbox funding originally provided in fiscal year 1995. \2\ Offsets from VC-11A sale ($600,000) and HU-25 sale ($1,000,000). Global positioning system installation, phase VII.--The Committee has provided $1,900,000 for the global positioning system [GPS] installation, which is the same amount recommended by the House. This is the same level of funding that was provided for GPS installation in fiscal year 1996. HC-130 engine conversion.--The Committee has provided $7,800,000 for the HC-130 engine conversion program, which is $1,000,000 less than that requested, but $1,000,000 more than provided by the House. This program seeks to improve the reliability of the C-130's and T-56 engines through an upgrade to a new series 3 engine version. The fiscal year 1997 request was to cover the production and installation of 22 conversion kits. This funding level would slow that program down only slightly, in that the program will be phased in over 3 years. HH-65 helicopter kapton rewiring.--The Committee has provided the full amount requested for the HH-65 helicopter kapton rewiring program, which is $1,500,000 less than that recommended by the House, which directed the Coast Guard to implement a faster replacement schedule. Asset sales.--The Committee has not reduced the overall funding level for aircraft procurement by assuming offsets from the VC-11A sale ($600,000), and the HU-25 sale ($1,000,000), as assumed by the House. Reprogrammings.--Of the amount provided for the aircraft procurement, $360,000 is from reprogramming of funds originally provided in fiscal year 1995 for the HH-65 transmission gearbox upgrade. It appears as though, after the conclusion of this program, there will remain available at least $360,000 from prior-year funds that could be used to offset the aircraft funding level in fiscal year 1997. other equipment The Committee recommends $46,200,000. The following table displays the project allocation: OTHER EQUIPMENT [In thousands of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year House Committee 1997 estimate allowance recommendation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fleet logistics system [FLS].................................... 9,300 9,300 9,300 Marine information for safety and law enforcement [MISLE]....... 5,000 5,000 5,000 Global maritime distress/safety system--phase V................. 700 700 700 Vessel traffic services [VTS] 2000.............................. 6,000 .............. 5,500 Conversion of software applications............................. 6,000 6,000 6,000 Finance Center information system replacement................... 2,100 2,100 2,100 Communication system [COMMSYS] 2000............................. 4,000 4,000 4,000 Seagoing buoy tender [WLB] and coastal buoy tender [WLM] support facility....................................................... 1,800 1,800 1,800 Personnel management information system/joint uniform military pay system II.................................................. 1,600 800 1,600 Aviation logistics management information system [ALMIS]........ 4,800 4,800 4,800 National distress system modernization.......................... 1,000 1,000 1,000 VHF-FM high level site upgrade--phase III....................... 4,400 4,400 4,400 ----------------------------------------------- Total..................................................... 46,700 39,900 46,200 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vessel traffic services [VTS] 2000.--The Committee has reviewed the findings and recommendations of the Marine Board report and directs the Coast Guard to examine options for the first operational vessel traffic services [VTS] 2000 system that minimizes the complexity necessary to prove the VTS 2000 concept. The Committee has long held the view that the scope of the VTS 2000 project is too broad. The Coast Guard's plan for a national VTS system should be reflective of the Marine Board's proposal for a baseline system and phased implementation, which will reduce acquisition cost and risk. This plan should include outreach efforts with the maritime community and other appropriate stakeholders. The Coast Guard shall also ensure that VTS 2000 will be based on an open system architecture maximizing use of commercial off-the-shelf equipment. The unobligated balances of all funds appropriated to the VTS 2000 project in prior years shall remain available for project expenditures. Personnel management information system.--The Committee has provided the full amount requested. shore facilities and aids to navigation The program level recommended is $54,500,000. Within this amount, $1,600,000 is made available through reprogrammed resources. The following table displays the project allocation: SHORE FACILITIES AND AIDS TO NAVIGATION [In thousands of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year House Committee 1997 estimate allowance recommendation \1\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shore--General: Survey and design shore projects........................ 6,000 6,000 6,000 Minor AC&I shore construction projects.................. 4,000 4,000 4,000 Shore--Air stations: Mid-Atlantic Air Station consolidation projects--phase II......................................... 1,300 1,300 1,300 Shore--Supply centers/support centers/yard: Baltimore, MD-- Coast Guard yard land-based ship handling facility......... 4,950 3,950 4,950 Support center Portsmouth--upgrade painting/sandblast facility................................................... 2,550 2,000 2,550 Support center San Pedro--construct medical facility........ 3,700 3,700 3,700 Shore--Personnel support facilities: Public family quarters. 12,000 12,000 12,000 Shore--Groups/bases/stations/MSO's: Station Juneau--renovate/expand station facili- ties... 2,000 2,000 2,000 Station Sabine--reconstruct/expand waterfront facilities 4,000 4,000 4,000 Coast Guard cutter Chippewa and Coast Guard cutter Obion--relocate Owensboro moorings..................... 2,000 2,000 2,000 Base, San Juan, PR--reconstruction phase II............. 12,000 10,000 7,000 Aids to navigation facilities: Waterways aids-to-navigation projects................................................... 5,000 5,000 5,000 Asset sales \2\............................................. .............. -8,000 .................. --------------------------------------------------- Total................................................. 59,500 47,950 54,500 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Includes $1,600,000 reprogramming of prior year's funding. \2\ Sale of Upolu Point, HI, loran station site. Cove Point Lighthouse, Maryland.--Within the account for minor AC&I construction projects, $90,000 is made available for repairs to the Cove Point Lighthouse, Maryland. Coast Guard yard land-based ship handling facility.--The Committee has provided the full amount for the Coast Guard ship handling facility in Baltimore, MD, which is $4,950,000. Providing the full amount requested for this facility results in an appropriation that is $1,000,000 above the House recommendation. The Coast Guard, in consultation with the Appropriations Committees, has phased this project over a period of time, which is of critical importance to the Coast Guard and its ability to maintain, renovate, and modernize their existing ships. Funding for this activity will be used for the purchase of lift equipment and associated waterfront work. Funding in fiscal year 1997 will be used for land-based work associated with this project, and the Committee believes it is necessary to provide the full amount requested for the project to proceed in an orderly manner. Base San Juan, PR--reconstruction phase II.--The Committee has provided $7,000,000 for the San Juan, PR, base reconstruction phase II, which is $5,000,000 below the request. The Committee has made this reduction based on information that the project has been rescoped, and that activities originally planned for fiscal year 1997 would not be proceeding. Therefore, the new funding that is necessary to keep the project on schedule is $5,000,000, which has been provided by the Committee. Reprogrammings.--Of the total amount provided, $54,500,000 for shore facilities and aids to navigation, $1,600,000 is to be derived from funds originally provided in fiscal year 1995 for the support center in Seattle, WA. Based on the latest information, it appears that this project, when completed in August 1996, will have an unobligated carryover of $1,600,000. In 1995, Congress appropriated $10,300,000 to renovate the pier for support center Seattle. In fiscal year 1996, Congress reduced the funds available to approximately $9,900,000, and the contract price was finally established at a little over $7,200,000. Therefore, these funds can be reprogrammed without harm. PERSONNEL AND RELATED SUPPORT The program level recommended is $47,000,000. Within the amount provided, $850,000 shall be for core acquisition costs. The Committee has provided the full amount requested for personnel and related support, and has not reduced the direct personnel cost by the $750,000 which was recommended by the House. The House's reduction was premised on no funding being provided for the VTS 2000 program, which had been terminated in the House bill. Since the Committee has provided funding for VTS 2000 to proceed, the restoration of the 20 staff-years associated with the project was necessary. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year House Committee Personnel and related support 1997 estimate allowance recommendation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Direct personnel costs.......................................... $46,150,000 $45,400,000 $46,150,000 Core acquisition costs.......................................... 850,000 850,000 850,000 ----------------------------------------------- Total..................................................... 47,000,000 46,250,000 47,000,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- bill language Wildwood, NJ, asset sale.--The Committee has not included bill language which was in the House bill and was requested by the administration that will allow the proceeds from the sale of property in Wildwood, NJ, to be credited to this appropriations account as an offsetting receipt, and stipulates that such proceeds shall be included in the budget baseline, as required by the Budget Enforcement Act. Inclusion of this bill language saves $20,000,000 in budget authority and outlays. One element of the Coast Guard's streamlining plan, the Electronic Engineering Center in Wildwood, NJ, is scheduled to be closed with an expected $20,000,000 in proceeds from sale of the property to be credited as offsetting collections to the ``Acquisition, construction, and improvements'' account. The Committee understands that the Coast Guard will follow procedures consistent with the General Services Administration property disposal process that permits screening and transfer to other Federal agencies. Based on new information, it appears that there will be interest from other Federal agencies for a transfer of the property vice a sale. In absence of sufficient collections, the Coast Guard appropriation should not be decreased should disposal generate less than the expected $20,000,000 in offsetting receipts. Asset sales.--The bill includes language which was first enacted in fiscal year 1996 which credits the ``Acquisition, construction, and improvements'' appropriation the proceeds derived from the sale or lease of the Coast Guard's surplus real property. This provision was requested by the administration in their fiscal year 1997 budget request. The Senate does not agree with the House proposal to use proceeds presumed from uncertain asset sales as offsetting collections to fund the ``Acquisition, construction, and improvements'' account in place of appropriated budget authority. Specifically, the loran station Upolo Point property, for which the House presumes proceeds of $8,000,000, is subject to the Hawaiian Home Land Recovery Act which requires that the land be conveyed back to the State of Hawaii without sale. The Coast Guard needs funding it can depend upon to carry out necessary projects. The Senate supports the authority vested in the Commandant which allows the sale of real property and specified operational assets, with proceeds to be credited to the ``Acquisition, construction, and improvements'' appropriation. Rescissions.--The House has included bill language, not requested by the administration, to rescind funds previously appropriated for the vessel traffic services [VTS] 2000 program. The House recommends rescinding $355,000 of fiscal year 1995 funding and $3,400,000 of fiscal year 1996 funding that remain unobligated and are associated with this program. The House recommended no additional funding for this activity in fiscal year 1997. Environmental Compliance and Restoration Appropriations, 1996.................................... $21,000,000 Budget estimate, 1997................................... 25,000,000 House allowance......................................... 21,000,000 Committee recommendation 23,000,000 The Committee recommends funding of $23,000,000 to continue the environmental restoration and compliance-related actions throughout the Coast Guard. These fiscal year 1997 funds will be used to address environmental problems at former and current Coast Guard units as required by applicable Federal, State, and local environmental laws and regulations. Planned expenditures for these funds include major upgrades to petroleum and regulated- substance storage tanks, restoration of contaminated ground water and soils, remediation efforts at hazardous substance disposal sites, and initial site surveys and actions necessary to bring Coast Guard shore facilities and vessels into compliance with environmental laws and regulations. The Senate has recommended a funding level of $23,000,000, which is $2,000,000 above the fiscal year 1996 enacted level. The House has fully funded the requested levels for site- specific cleanup and restoration, $15,500,000. But, it has reduced environmental compliance from the requested $3,834,000 to $2,500,000, and has reduced the personnel funding from the requested $5,666,000 to $3,000,000. The Committee has restored the personnel funding level to $5,666,000, the environmental compliance activity to $2,834,000, and has reduced site- specific funding to $14,500,000. ISC Kodiak remediation funding.--The investigation and potential cleanup of 34 sites on ISC Kodiak, as per the 1990 Resources Conservation Recovery Act consent order, goes well. Eight of these sites have been closed and eight other sites have been approved for no further action status. Due to reduced levels of contamination anticipated, lower than expected costs to meet consent order milestones, and successful ongoing milestone negotiations with the regulatory bodies, annual requirements for this project have been reduced from past levels of $4,400,000 to $5,400,000 to about $3,000,000 to $3,500,000. Given overall budget constraints and other demands placed on the ``Environmental compliance and restoration'' appropriation, $2,600,000 will be adequate to continue this remediation effort in fiscal year 1997. Port Safety Development Appropriations, 1996.................................... $15,000,000 Budget estimate, 1997................................................... House allowance......................................................... Committee recommendation 5,000,000 The Committee has included $5,000,000 in additional funding to support infrastructure-related development at the Port of Portland, OR, including reduction of debt from prior infrastructure development guaranteed by local taxpayers. Recent legislation allows Alaska North Slope oil to be exported rather than be used exclusively for domestic purposes. This change in Federal policy jeopardized substantial investments made by the port in response to anticipated increases in demand. Because of increased repair work and dockings, substantial sums were borrowed to make infrastructure improvements necessary to satisfy capacity, safety, and environmental issues. Alteration of Bridges Appropriations, 1996.................................... $16,000,000 Budget estimate, 1997................................... 2,000,000 House allowance......................................... 16,000,000 Committee recommendation 10,000,000 The ``Alteration of bridges'' appropriation provides funds for the Coast Guard's share of the cost of altering or removing bridges obstructive to navigation. Under the provisions of the Truman-Hobbs Act of June 21, 1940, as amended (33 U.S.C. 511 et seq.), the Coast Guard, as the Federal Government's agent, is required to share with owners the cost of altering railroad and publicly owned highway bridges which obstruct the free movement of navigation on navigable waters of the United States in accordance with the formula established in 33 U.S.C. 516. Beginning in 1995, the administration decided that the Coast Guard would no longer fund the alteration of highway bridges determined to be unreasonable obstructions to navigation. The Federal share of such projects would be financed from the Federal Highway Administration [FHWA], under the continuing program oversight of the Coast Guard. Funding of $2,000,000 is requested by the administration for fiscal year 1997 to continue work on the Burlington Northern Railroad bridge over the Mississippi River at Burlington, IA. The House provides funding for the Burlington, IA, bridge as requested, and additional funds for: New Orleans, LA, Florida Avenue, railroad/highway bridge......$7,000,000 Brunswick, GA, Sidney Lanier Highway Bridge 7,000,000 The Committee has provided $10,000,000 which includes $2,000,000 for the Burlington Northern Railroad bridge at Burlington, IA, and $8,000,000 for the Sidney Lanier Bridge at Brunswick, GA. Retired Pay Appropriations, 1996.................................... $582,022,000 Budget estimate, 1997................................... 608,084,000 House allowance......................................... 608,084,000 Committee recommendation 608,084,000 The ``Retired pay'' appropriation provides for retired pay of military personnel of the Coast Guard and Coast Guard Reserve, members of the former Lighthouse Service, and for annuities payable to beneficiaries of retired military personnel under the retired serviceman's family protection plan (10 U.S.C. 1431-1446) and survivor benefit plan (10 U.S.C. 1447-1455), and for medical care of retired personnel and their dependents under the Dependents Medical Care Act. The average number of personnel on the retired rolls is estimated to be 30,161 in fiscal year 1997, as compared with an estimated 29,549 in fiscal year 1996 and 28,662 in fiscal year 1995. The bill includes $608,084,000 for retired pay, which is the same as the House allowance and the budget request. Reserve Training Appropriations, 1996.................................... $62,000,000 Budget estimate, 1997................................... 65,890,000 House allowance......................................... 65,890,000 Committee recommendation 65,890,000 Under the provisions of 14 U.S.C. 145, the Secretary of Transportation is required to adequately support the development and training of a Reserve force to ensure that the Coast Guard will be sufficiently organized, manned, and equipped to fully perform its wartime missions. The purpose of the Reserve training program is to provide trained units and qualified persons for active duty in the Coast Guard in time of war or national emergency, or at such other times as the national security requires. Coast Guard reservists must also train for mobilization assignments that are unique to the Coast Guard in times of war, such as port security operations associated with the Coast Guard's Maritime Defense Zone [MDZ] mission and include deployable port security units. The Committee has provided $65,890,000 for Reserve training. The amount provided is the same as the House allowance and the President's request. The amount provided will support a Selected Reserve Force of 8,000 members, the same level as fiscal year 1996. The Coast Guard is provided Reserve training funding as follows: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- President's Committee Functional program element Fiscal year request (8000 recommendation 1996 levels SELRES) (8000 SELRES) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Drill pay and benefits.......................................... $24,600,000 $26,097,000 $26,097,000 Full-time support personnel..................................... 19,400,000 20,134,000 20,134,000 Annual training program......................................... 9,700,000 10,646,000 10,646,000 District administration/training................................ 4,050,000 4,299,000 4,299,000 Recruiting...................................................... 1,500,000 1,783,000 1,783,000 O/M support to training facilities.............................. 1,575,000 1,690,000 1,690,000 Headquarters administration..................................... 1,175,000 1,241,000 1,241,000 ----------------------------------------------- Total..................................................... 62,000,000 65,890,000 65,890,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- General Trust Total ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appropriations, 1996............................................ $14,850,000 $3,150,000 $18,000,000 Budget estimate, 1997........................................... 15,280,000 5,020,000 20,300,000 House allowance................................................. 13,980,000 5,020,000 19,000,000 Committee recommendation........................................ 14,530,000 5,020,000 19,550,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Coast Guard's Research and Development Program seeks to improve the tools and techniques with which Coast Guard carries out its varied operational missions and to increase the knowledge base upon which it depends to fulfill its regulatory responsibilities. The bill includes $19,550,000 for research, development, test, and evaluation, which is $750,000 below the budget request and $550,000 above the House allowance. The Committee recommendation for funding distribution is as follows: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year Fiscal year 1997 House Committee 1996 estimate allowance recommendation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Program areas: Search and rescue................................. $932,000 $1,872,000 $1,872,000 $1,872,000 Waterways safety.................................. 2,189,000 1,385,000 1,385,000 1,385,000 Marine safety..................................... 2,700,000 3,825,000 3,825,000 3,825,000 Ship structure committee.......................... ............ 437,000 223,000 223,000 Marine environmental protection................... 1,354,000 1,791,000 2,291,000 1,791,000 Maritime law enforcement.......................... 1,229,000 791,000 791,000 791,000 Safety and environmental compli- ance............ 2,318,000 2,652,000 2,452,000 2,452,000 Human resource management......................... 100,000 147,000 147,000 147,000 Command, control, computers, and intelligence..... 928,000 1,014,000 928,000 928,000 Technology base................................... 500,000 1,600,000 550,000 1,350,000 Multimission/administrative support............... 5,750,000 4,786,000 4,536,000 4,786,000 --------------------------------------------------------- Total......................................... 18,000,000 20,300,000 19,000,000 19,550,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Committee has made slight reductions only to the fiscal year 1997 request for research and development. The first reduction is in the ship structure committee, where the Committee has reduced the support for the ship structure committee from the requested level of $400,000 to $186,000, which is the same level as that recommended by the House. In the marine environmental protection area, the Committee has provided the amount requested for the aquatic nuisance species program, which is $200,000. The Committee has not provided the additional unrequested funding of $500,000 recommended by the House. In the environmental compliance area, the Committee agrees with the House's recommendation and has reduced the pollution prevention line item from the $700,000 requested to $500,000. For command and control computers and intelligence, the Committee agrees with the House's recommendation for the advanced communication system line item, which reduces that program from $350,000 to $264,000. In the technology base line item, the Committee has reduced the program by $250,000. The subactivity future technology assessments has been reduced from $400,000 to $200,000, and the selected projects line item has been reduced from $800,000 to $755,000. In the multimission administrative support line item, the Committee has provided the full amount requested, which includes $2,571,000 for administration and personnel. Boat Safety (aquatic resources trust fund) Appropriations, 1996.................................... $20,000,000 Budget estimate, 1997 \1\............................... (45,000,000) House allowance \2\..................................... 35,000,000 Committee recommendation \2\............................ 10,000,000 \1\ The President's budget proposed, contingent on enactment of legislation, that $45,000,000 be available as a direct (mandatory) program and no discretionary funds. \2\ In addition to the appropriation of general funds, the House and Senate assume $10,000,000 in mandatory trust funds. This account provides financial assistance for a coordinated National Recreational Boating Safety Program for the several States. Title 46, United States Code, section 13106, establishes a ``Boat safety'' account from which the Secretary may allocate and distribute matching funds to assist in the development, administration, and financing of qualifying State programs. The ``Boat safety'' account consists of amounts transferred from the highway trust fund which are derived from the motorboat fuel tax (18.4 cents per gallon). The President's budget requests no general fund discretionary funding in 1997. The President's request proposed to provide all funding for the State boating safety grant program by increasing from $10,000,000 to $45,000,000 the amount of mandatory funding from the ``Sport fish restoration'' account as authorized under the Clean Vessel Act of 1992 (title V of the Oceans Act of 1992). The Senate-passed Coast Guard authorization bill supports the administration's proposal for funding this activity through direct, mandatory spending. The House provides $35,000,000 in general funds and assumes an additional $10,000,000 in permanent indefinite appropriations from the Clean Vessel Act of 1992, Public Law 102-587, for a total program level of $45,000,000. Under current law, all boating safety grant funds are distributed by formula. The Committee has provided $10,000,000 in new appropriations and assumes an additional $10,000,000 in funding from the Clean Vessel Act of 1992, for a total program level of $20,000,000. In addition, another $35,000,000 may be realized from the ``Sport fish restoration'' account upon passage of the Coast Guard authorization act. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Summary of Fiscal Year 1997 Program The Federal Aviation Administration traces its origins to the Air Commerce Act of 1926, but more recently to the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 which established the independent Federal Aviation Agency from functions which had resided in the Airways Modernization Board, the Civil Aeronautics Administration, and parts of the Civil Aeronautics Board. FAA became an administration of the Department of Transportation on April 1, 1967, pursuant to the Department of Transportation Act (October 15, 1966). The total recommended program level for the FAA for fiscal year 1997 amounts to $8,200,657,000 including $75,000,000 in user fees credited to the ``Operations'' appropriation and a $1,400,000,000 obligation limitation on the use of contract authority for the Airport Grants Program. The following table summarizes the Committee's recommendations: [In thousands of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year Program Fiscal year 1997 budget House Committee 1996 enacted estimate allowance recommendation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Operations..................................... \1\ 4,645,712 4,918,269 4,900,000 4,899,957 User fees...................................... .............. -150,000 -30,000 -75,000 Facilities and equipment....................... \2\ 1,934,883 1,788,700 1,800,000 1,788,700 Research, engineering, and development......... 185,698 195,700 185,000 187,000 Grants-in-aid for airports \3\................. 1,450,000 1,350,000 1,300,000 1,400,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Total.................................... 8,216,343 8,102,669 8,155,000 8,200,657 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Excludes reductions pursuant to sections 327 and 349 of Public Law 104-50. \2\ Excludes $68,811,000 rescission pursuant to Public Law 104-50; and section 31002 of Public Law 104-134. \3\ Limitation on obligations. Operations ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- General Trust User fees Total ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appropriations, 1996........................ $2,422,852,900 $2,222,859,100 ............... $4,645,712,000 Budget estimate, 1997....................... 2,025,667,000 2,742,602,000 $150,000,000 4,918,269,000 House allowance............................. 2,127,398,000 2,742,602,000 30,000,000 4,900,000,000 Committee recommendation.................... 2,082,355,000 2,742,602,000 75,000,000 4,899,957,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FAA's ``Operations'' appropriation provides funds for the operation, maintenance, communications, and logistic support of the air traffic control and navigation systems and activities. It also covers the administration and management of the regulatory, airports, commercial space, medical and engineering, and development programs. The bill includes a total of $4,899,957,000 for the operations activities of the Federal Aviation Administration, of which $2,742,602,000 shall be derived from the airport and airway trust fund and $75,000,000 offsetting collections derived from user fees. The account total is $254,245,000 more than the amount appropriated for fiscal year 1996. As in past years, FAA is directed to report immediately to the Committees on Appropriations in the event resources are insufficient to operate a safe and effective air traffic control system. The activities of the operations accounts comprise eight main areas consistent with FAA's reorganization to bring together functions and activities that support the provision of a single, major service and to establish a single executive responsible for that service. Air traffic services.--The operations and maintenance of the national air traffic control and navigation system and the installation of air traffic and navigation equipment. Air traffic services consists of five subactivities: air traffic, NAS logistics, systems maintenance, leased telecommunications, and flight inspections. Aviation regulation and certifications.--Promotes aviation safety and ensures compliance with safety and certification standards for air carriers, commercial operators, air agencies, airmen, and civil aircraft, including aircraft registration; develops and administers safety standards for airworthiness of aircraft and components. Includes accident investigation, aviation medicine, aviation rulemaking, and the suspected unapproved parts office. Civil aviation security.--Provides for the overall planning, direction, management, evaluation, and enforcement of civil aviation security; supports efforts covering the investigation and interdiction of illegal drugs and the assessment of foreign airports. Research and acquisition.--Responsible for all research, prototyping, system development, and acquisition activities. Includes the William J. Hughes Technical Center. Administration of airports.--Provides for the administration of airport grants and the safety inspection and certification of the Nation's airports. Commercial space transportation.--Facilitates and promotes commercial space launches by the U.S. private sector and licenses and regulates commercial launches, launch site operations, and certain payloads. Administration.--Funds the administrative functions that establish policy and direct and develop programs in the areas of FAA aircraft use and management, building space management, budget and accounting, business information and consultation, human resource management, and technical and management training; includes the regional administrators and the Aeronautical Center Director. Staff offices.--Funds the Office of the Administrator and the Deputy Administrator, and offices that report directly to the Administrator and provide executive direction; operations and communications control; civil rights; government and industry affairs; policy, planning, and international aviation; legal counsel; and public affairs. The following table summarizes the Committee's recommendation in comparison to the budget estimate and House allowance: [In thousands of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year Fiscal year 1996 program 1997 budget House Committee level \1\ estimate allowance recommendations ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air traffic services........................... 3,623,132 3,827,137 3,816,471 3,802,419 Aviation regulation and certification.......... 437,848 487,911 487,289 487,605 Aviation security.............................. 67,453 71,921 71,921 71,921 Research and acquisition....................... 75,781 78,034 78,034 78,034 Administration of airports..................... 41,328 45,367 43,367 43,250 Commercial space transportation................ 5,757 6,169 6,049 6,049 Administration................................. 324,809 332,499 329,865 332,499 Staff offices.................................. 67,624 69,230 66,430 68,230 Accountwide adjustments........................ .............. .............. 574 9,950 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Total.................................... 4,643,732 4,918,269 4,900,000 4,899,957 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Includes $1,012,000 carryover from prior years. air traffic services The Committee recommends a total of $3,802,419,000 for the operation and maintenance of the national air traffic control and flight service system. This is $24,718,000 less than the budget estimate, but $179,287,000 above the fiscal year 1996 level. Over the next decade, the Committee expects to see the billions of dollars of new technology being developed, procured, and implemented under the ``Facilities and equipment'' account--computers, communications equipment, and information analysis capability--reflected in a trend toward more productive work forces and, therefore, lower operations budget estimates. The major activities include: Air traffic.--The Committee recommends $2,265,790,000 and 24,183 FTE's. The Committee's recommendation provides a net increase of 250 additional air traffic controllers, and has provided the full amount requested for overall employment levels. --Air traffic detailees.--The Committee's recommendation under air traffic concurs in the House's reduction of $3,500,000 associated with air traffic detailees. Approximately 450 air traffic controllers work outside of the controller work force, and, therefore, are not available for controlling air traffic. Estimated costs of the detailee program are $34,000,000 a year. The Committee recognizes that it is important that FAA retain the ability to detail controllers to other positions, including having their input available for work groups, special project teams, and in some cases, headquarters staff. However, the Committee concurs in the House's observation which reduces the detail positions by approximately 10 percent, which results in a savings of $3,500,000. --Department of Labor wage determinations.--The Committee does not concur with the House's reduction of $500,000 for Department of Labor wage determinations. The Committee understands that in September 1995, FAA requested a waiver from the Service Contract Act for contract tower locations. However, there has been no formal response from the Department of Labor, nor have dates been set for meetings to discuss options to the Service Contract Act. Since there is no agreement on an exemption for contracted towers, the Committee believes it is premature to assume savings at this time. --Aviation safety reporting system.--The Committee has not included the additional funding of $1,000,000 which was recommended by the House for the aviation safety reporting system. Additional funding for the safety reporting system is contained in the ``Research'' account. --Herndon, VA, lease.--The Committee has not followed the House's recommendation which would transfer $3,300,000 to the ``Operations'' account from the ``Facilities and equipment'' account. The House believed that this would more accurately reflect the nature of the costs being incurred at the Herndon, VA, facility. --New York/New Jersey area controllers.--The Committee is aware of the severe staffing and equipment problems within the air traffic control system in the New York/ New Jersey metropolitan region, which results in increased delays and inefficiencies. The Committee has provided requested funding for 250 additional controllers and directs that adequate staffing with the level of expertise needed be provided to the FAA. The Committee encourages the Administrator to recruit controllers from lower level towers in the region to serve higher level towers in the region. The Committee also directs the Administrator to report to the Committee by April 1, 1997, on the initiation of a local recruiting effort in the New York/New Jersey region. --Juneau, AK.--The Committee has included $200,000 for weather/wind information at the Juneau International Airport, AK. National airspace system logistics support.--The Committee recommends $182,580,000 for this subactivity including 1,195 FTE's. The funding provided for the national airspace system logistics support activity is the full amount requested by the administration for fiscal year 1997, and is the amount provided in the House allowance. Within the funds provided, the Committee expects that site surveys and monumenting at rural airports in Alaska will be conducted to help facilitate GPS implementation. Maintenance of air traffic control system.--The Committee recommends $960,246,000 and 9,616 FTE's for this budget subactivity. The Committee has reduced the amount requested for maintenance by $4,376,000. These cuts are associated primarily in contractor support and maintenance activities that were double counted in the submission of the fiscal year 1997 budget request. The systems maintenance reductions are associated with the following subactivities: Gemini project, software maintenance.................... -$1,000,000 Remote maintenance monitoring/contractor support........ -300,000 Multivoice recorders contractor technicians............. -200,000 Aeronautical data link.................................. -231,000 ASR-9 software maintenance.............................. -650,000 Radio control equipment contractor maintenance.......... -200,000 Maintenance processor/software.......................... -597,000 Precision runway monitors/contractor support............ -1,198,000 Leased telecommunication services.--The Committee recommends $333,935,000 for this budget subactivity. FAA's leased telecommunications request for fiscal year 1997 ($350,777,000) represents a $32,589,000 increase over the fiscal year 1996 level. While the Committee understands the importance of having a growing telecommunications capability available to meet new national airspace system [NAS] requirements, the Committee believes that it may not be the best use of limited taxpayer dollars to increase investments in leased telecommunications when FAA-owned telecommunication resources sit idle. The radio communications link [RCL], which is owned by FAA, is one of the largest microwave networks in the country. RCL is supposed to reduce the need for leased telecommunications services and is supposed to be a primary backup for air traffic control. However, RCL is greatly underutilized. Designed to carry telecommunications traffic over 15,000 circuits, as of April 1996, FAA is only using a little over 2,000 circuits--a 13-percent utilization rate. Because 87 percent of FAA's own RCL telecommunications resources sit idle, the Committee directs FAA to report to the Congress by March 30, 1997, on its plans to transition some leased telecommunication services to RCL. The plans should identify all essential, backup, and administrative services presently leased that can be transitioned to RCL and the leased cost savings that could be eliminated from FAA's future budgets. Since FAA expects a need for additional telecommunications to meet new NAS requirements, the plan should also identify the new requirements that will be accommodated by RCL. Overall, the Committee has reduced the request for leased telecommunication services by $16,842,000. Of this reduction, $5,000,000 is associated with the Committee's direction that FAA transfer to the radio communications link as much of the existing workload as possible to better fully utilize that resource. Also, the Committee concurs with the House's transfer of $8,600,000 from the telecommunications support line within operations to the facilities and equipment line. Since this system is still under development and has recently experienced program slippages due to the awarding of the WAAS contract to new parties, it is more appropriate that costs associated with this program be shown in the ``Facilities and equipment'' appropriation. The Committee has reduced the request by another $500,000 for costs that were originally projected for the consolidation of FAA's Chicago terminal radar approach control program. It appears that these costs will come in under the original budget projection. Funding is also reduced for the aeronautical data link program by $2,742,000. According to recent reports, the requirements in the aeronautical data program can be reduced because FAA will be using more efficient FAA switching networks to provide the communications channel between tower and aircraft. Flight inspection.--The Committee recommends $59,868,000 and 580 FTE's for this activity which is the full amount requested. aviation regulation and certification The Committee recommends $487,605,000 and 5,301 full-time permanent positions for this activity. Funding provided for aviation regulation and certification is an increase of $49,757,000 over fiscal year 1996. The Committee fully funds the requested employment increases for administrative support (+152), airworthiness inspectors (+54), airline operations inspectors (+100), certification engineers and pilots (+75), and manufacturing certification inspectors (+29). The Committee, however, has reduced the Office of Rulemaking by $306,000 as opposed to the reduction of $622,000 in the House allowance. civil aviation security The Committee recommends $71,921,000 and 777 FTE's for this budget activity. The Committee has fully funded the civil aviation security program, which is also the amount provided under the House allowance. This recommendation allows for a 6.6-percent increase over the fiscal year 1996 level. research and acquisition The Committee recommends $78,034,000 and 697 FTE's for this budget activity, which is a 3-percent increase over the fiscal year 1996 enacted level. Out of the funds provided, the Committee expects FAA to continue its contribution for firefighting and emergency services at the Atlantic City International Airport, either alone or in conjunction with the New Jersey Air National Guard. administration of airports The Committee concurs with the House reduction and recommends $43,250,000 and 467 FTE's for this activity. Under the Committee's recommendation, the administration of airports program would be reduced $2,117,000 from the requested level for fiscal year 1997. The Committee has not included funding for the requested 26-person increase in staff-years. The Committee, due to budget constraints, cannot fund the request at this particular time and sees no immediate need to do so. The Committee agrees with the House observation that, since there are no new programmatic initiatives proposed by the FAA, additional staffing for this office is not justified at this time. COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION The Committee recommends $6,049,000 and 30 FTE's for this activity. The Committee's recommendation for the Commercial Space Transportation Office is the same as the House allowance. The Committee has not funded the additional three positions requested in the fiscal year 1997 request, and holds staffing levels to the fiscal year 1996 level. administration The Committee recommends $332,499,000 and 2,016 FTE's for this budget activity. The Committee has fully funded the administration's request for fiscal year 1997 in the administration activity level. The Committee does not concur with a number of House recommendations in this activity. Funding for the air traffic systems maintenance training was provided in the air traffic services activity and has not been transferred to the administration activity. Mid-America Aviation Resource Consortium.--The Committee does not concur with the House's earmark of $1,700,000 for the Mid-America Aviation Resource Consortium. In order to fund the facility in Minnesota, the House has transferred funds out of the air traffic controller training program, which was to be conducted at the FAA's own in-house facility. The Committee does not agree with this redirection of work, and refers to the conference report that accompanied the fiscal year 1996 bill (H. Rept. 104-286). In that report, under FAA operations, it was stated, ``The conferees agree to provide $250,000 for continued support of the Mid-America Aviation Resource Consortium as proposed by the House, but intend that this be the final year of Federal support for this facility unless requested in the President's budget.'' Funding for this facility was not specifically requested in the administration's budget, and given that Congress has supported this facility for a number of years by funding above that requested in any of the administrations' budgets, the Committee believes that as a successful program, it should competitively bid for training contracts with the FAA and no longer needs nor warrants a special earmark. Personnel systems streamlining.--The Committee does not agree with the House's action which would reduce funding for the personnel system by 10 percent. The Committee has, therefore, provided the full amount requested. staff offices The Committee recommends $68,230,000 and 584 FTE's for this budget activity, a reduction of $1,000,000 from the requested amount. The Committee has reduced the request for staff offices by $1,000,000 and concurs with the House's observation that this decrease should come from the foreign affairs administrative support area. Since the submission of the fiscal year 1997 budget, FAA's estimate of requirements in this area have been reduced after consultation with the Department of State. The Committee has not provided the additional $200,000 recommended by the House in additional funding for monitoring the workers' compensation program, nor has it reduced headquarters staffing by the $2,000,000 which was recommended by the House. ACCOUNTWIDE ADJUSTMENTS Dangerous goods cargo security program.--The Committee has provided $9,950,000 above that requested by the administration for a dangerous goods and cargo security program. Global air transportation of hazardous materials has been growing at a steady rate of approximately 7 percent per year. The majority of these goods (60 percent) are being transported on passenger carrying equipment, and according to the FAA, the report of incidents in air transportation associated with this type of cargo has increased by 122 percent since 1991. The recent ValuJet accident and dangerous trends prompted a critical review by the FAA of the adequacy of its current procedures and policies for reducing the risks created by the transportation of hazardous materials in the air. Although FAA, with its given resources, monitors the compliance of air carriers to existing hazardous materials rules and regulations, it is estimated that almost 80 percent of the problems associated with this type of cargo originate with shippers. The Committee believes that the traveling public needs an acceptable level of safety that can only be achieved not only with air carrier inspections, but also targeted inspections at freight forwarders, repair stations, and commercial shippers. Therefore, the Committee has included the $9,950,000 above the fiscal year 1997 request to address these problems. It is expected that under this funding level FAA will hire approximately 130 people to expand the current inspector, security, and legal work force, to target key areas of activity to control hazardous materials shipments. The Committee has not assigned this funding nor the positions to a particular activity within FAA, and expects FAA to report back to the Committee as soon as possible as to how it intends to use the additional funding provided, including the number of new persons hired, for what activities they will be hired, and a summarized work plan of how the new personnel will be put to work beginning in fiscal year 1997. BILL LANGUAGE Offsetting collections.--The Committee has included bill language within the FAA ``Operations'' account to allow the agency to collect up to $75,000,000 in offsetting collections. This provision is consistent with the Senate authorization bill which authorizes the Federal Aviation Administration to charge overflight fees to carriers who use U.S. territorial airspace and air traffic services, but do not actually land or take off from U.S. territory. The offsetting collections would be deposited into the FAA ``Operations'' account for use by the agency without further appropriation. In addition, the Committee assumes additional fees for obstruction evaluation. The House's bill language would allow up to $30,000,000 in user fees to be credited to the appropriation as offsetting collections. The House directs that the only additional user fees which are authorized are those attributable to services provided to aircraft that neither take off from nor land in the United States. Second career training program.--The Committee has included bill language which was included in the President's budget request and was also contained in the House bill which prohibits the use of appropriated funds for the second career training program. This prohibition has been carried in annual appropriations acts for many years. Sunday premium pay.--The bill retains a provision, first included in the fiscal year 1995 appropriations bill, which prohibits FAA from paying Sunday premium pay, except in those cases where the individual actually worked on a Sunday. This provision is identical to that which was in effect for fiscal years 1995 and 1996. It has been included in the House bill, and was requested by the administration for fiscal year 1997. Manned auxiliary flight service stations.--The Committee has included bill language which was requested by the administration to prohibit the use of funds for operating a manned auxiliary flight service station in the contiguous United States. There is no funding provided in the ``Operations'' account for such stations in fiscal year 1997. The House also included this language, as requested by the administration. Commercial space transportation.--The Committee has included language which prohibits the use of any funds from the airport and airway trust fund for the support of the operations and activities of the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation. This prohibition is included in the House bill, and was requested by the administration. general provisions Passenger manifest.--The bill contains a limitation (sec. 316) which has been contained in previous appropriations acts prohibiting the Department of Transportation from issuing a final rule on an international passenger manifest program that applies to only U.S. carriers. The general provision is the same as that contained in the House bill, section 316. O'Hare Airport slots.--The bill contains a general provision (sec. 319) first included in the fiscal year 1995 appropriations bill, which prohibits funding that would implement or enforce regulations that would result in slot allocations for international carrier operations for O'Hare Airport access which are in excess of the number of slots allocated to and scheduled by that carrier on the first day of the calendar year 1993 winter season. Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development.--The bill contains a general provision (sec. 320) which has been carried in previous years and is recommended by the House. This provision would prohibit the use of any funds in this act to compensate for more than 335 technical staff-years at the federally funded research and development center which is contracted between the Federal Aviation Administration and the Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development. Denver International Airport.--The Committee has included a general provision (sec. 324), recommended by the House, which prohibits the use of any funds for the planning, engineering, design, or construction of a sixth runway at the Denver International Airport. This provision, however, shall not apply when the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration determines and certifies in writing that safety conditions warrant the obligation and use of such funds. other Federal surplus personal property for public airport purposes.--The Committee directs the FAA to continue its administration of the Federal Surplus Personal Property Program. The Committee believes that this program is of particular importance to smaller airports, in that it reduces equipment acquisition costs associated with federally mandated programs. The Committee urges the FAA to work with the General Services Administration to ensure that airports are receiving the highest priority available to Federal grant recipients; and work with industry to ensure that the property is distributed in the most efficient and effective manner possible. Contract tower program.--In recent years, the Committee has provided resources to expand and streamline the level I contract tower program because of the substantial budgetary savings that can result for the Federal Government and users. The Committee has found that air traffic services at these facilities are safe and efficient and there is also the same positive effect on airport growth as at FAA-staffed facilities. In the current budgetary situation, it is important to continue support steps to assure that the program remains cost effective. The Committee is concerned that the current approach to wage determinations at contract tower facilities may significantly increase the cost of the program. Despite report language last year, the Committee understands that FAA and the Labor Department still have not met to resolve the wage determination situation at contract towers. Therefore, the Secretary of Transportation, in cooperation with the Secretary of Labor, is directed to initiate any action necessary to discontinue prospective or retroactive wage determinations for professional employees at all level I contract tower locations where there are five or fewer employees, as provided for in the Service Contract Act of 1965. Ogden-Hinckley Municipal Airport.--Ogden-Hinckley serves as the primary reliever and weather divert for Salt Lake City International Airport. The Committee, in the Senate report accompanying the fiscal year 1996 Transportation appropriations bill, directed the FAA to give priority consideration to the grant request for the upgrade of terminal facilities at Ogden- Hinckley Municipal Airport to meet the security needs of passengers in fulfilling its role as a weather divert destination and to begin to prepare the facility for the transportation needs associated with the 2002 Winter Olympics. The Committee acknowledges FAA's responsiveness to its directive in facilitating the approval of Ogden-Hinckley's grant request for phase 1 of the existing terminal upgrade. To further address security needs, operations capabilities, and passenger handling in its role as a weather divert and to prepare to handle the system demands that will be associated with the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, the Committee directs FAA to give priority consideration to the grant requests for security fencing, for construction of a helipad, and completion of phase 2 of the existing terminal upgrade at Ogden-Hinckley Municipal Airport. Maryland air noise.--The Committee directs the Federal Aviation Administration to enforce all applicable rules and regulations governing noise abatement procedures at Washington National Airport and closely monitor aircraft noise in Montgomery County, MD. The Committee also directs the FAA to work with the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority to continue efforts aimed at reducing aircraft noise in Montgomery County. Colorado Springs, CO.--The limitations on obligations for airport development and planning grants are intended to continue the important tasks of enhancing airport safety, ensuring that airport standards are met, maintaining existing airport capacity, and developing additional capacity. The Committee notes that the Colorado Springs Airport, in Colorado Springs, CO, is one of the fast growing major airports in the country. Therefore, the Committee urges that priority be given to grant applications involving the construction and/or rehabilitation of taxiways for the Colorado Springs Airport. Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport.--In fiscal years 1995 and 1996, the Committee endorsed expeditious consideration of a multiyear letter of intent for the Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport. The Committee still encourages the Federal Aviation Administration to consider a letter of intent, or any other advanced funding mechanism that allows for future reimbursement of all allowable costs related to the approved project. The region's existing airport will not be able to adequately meet projected future demands because of the area's profound growth in population and economic activity. The Committee feels that this project will enhance the systemwide airport capacity. Salisbury/Wicomico County Regional Airport.--The Committee urges the FAA to expedite consideration of the Salisbury/ Wicomico County (MD) Regional Airport application to the FAA Contract Tower Program. Sanford-Lee County, NC.--The Federal Aviation Administration is directed to accelerate construction funding of the new Sanford-Lee County, NC, airport project, which has been designated a reliever airport by the FAA. The Committee directs the FAA, other considerations notwithstanding, to provide funding so that the project will be completed by 1999. Further, the Committee understands that this acceleration of funding will help this project stay within the projected costs. New Orleans International Airport.--The Committee understands that New Orleans International Airport [NOIA] has filed an application for a letter of intent for multiyear funding for the construction of a new north-south parallel runway for NOIA, which is needed to accommodate present and future traffic demands in the Louisiana/Mississippi region and the anticipated increase to traffic due to cargo traffic related to international trade. The airport intends to demonstrate that the local share of this project will be made through the continuation of the State transportation tax and passenger facility charges and has projected substantial investment savings over the anticipated 30-year life of the runway. The Committee recognizes the large operational savings that would be derived by the construction of the new parallel runway and the future importance of NOIA as an intermodal center for commerce, and, therefore, recommends that the FAA consider a letter of intent with NOIA. Airport Improvement Program [AIP] distribution.--In a time of diminished financial resources, the Committee appreciates the FAA's efforts to create a practical method of distributing limited AIP dollars to numerous airports for noise mitigation programs by restricting the maximum funding level for noise programs at each airport to $5,000,000 per year. The Committee is concerned, however, that this new rule does not take into account the FAA's previous commitments to existing programs or the actual needs of each airport. Therefore, the FAA is encouraged to take into account specific needs of airports, and especially to honor prior commitments made by airports to communities in reliance on the Federal noise program. Princeton Airport.--The Committee is aware of ongoing concerns regarding the routing of flights over the residential areas near Princeton Airport, NJ. Princeton Airport is in the process of developing a master plan and airport layout plan [ALP], which must be approved by the FAA as well as by the State. In order to encourage resolution of the issues at Princeton Airport, the Committee directs the FAA to (1) withhold release of any additional AIP funds to the Princeton Airport for any airport development project; and (2) to negotiate with the State of New Jersey to amend the State Block Grant Pilot Program Agreement of July 10, 1993, and the State Block Grant Agreement of July 19, 1993, to provide for withholding the release of any State Block Grant Pilot Program funds to Princeton Airport for any airport development project, until the environmental assessment and the master plan/ALP have been completed and evaluated with full public input and comment; and until the Secretary is satisfied and reports to the Committee that fair consideration has been given to the interests of the communities affected by Princeton Airport, as required by section 509(b)(4) of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 for direct AIP grants; and that any proposed project in Princeton Airport's master plan is consistent with adopted master plans of communities affected by the airport. Similar language was included in last year's report. The Committee is pleased to learn that progress on this issue has been made. The Committee encourages parties associated with this dispute to continue their negotiations so that a final solution to this problem can be reached. South Jersey Transportation Authority/Atlantic City Airport.--The Committee is aware that the FAA's planned transfer of ownership of airport certificate 139, runways, taxiways, and other properties to the South Jersey Transportation Authority will create a hardship on the Atlantic City International Airport. The Committee directs the FAA Administrator to work with the SJTA to ensure that sufficient Federal funds are available for runway repairs and other necessary improvements prior to the transfer of the certificate. Philadelphia International Airport.--The Committee understands that an application for multiyear funding is pending for construction of a new parallel runway for Philadelphia International Airport, which is needed to provide a level of service sufficient for residents and businesses in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware. The airport has demonstrated that its local share of the project costs will consist of airport revenue bonds and a steady stream of passenger facility charges. Noting the constraints on its budget, the Committee commends the FAA for having already provided several discretionary grants to ensure that this runway project continues to make progress. Given that capacity constraints have caused considerable delays at the airport, leading to annual costs in the millions of dollars, the Committee recommends that the FAA enter into a letter of intent with the project sponsor for construction of the runway project. Lancaster Airport, PA.--The Committee commends to the FAA's attention the growing need for a runway extension project at the Lancaster, PA, airport. The Lancaster Airport lacks 1,000- foot extended runway safety areas (overruns) which are required by the FAA. As a result, most corporate aircraft are limited to 60 percent of their useful load. The Committee notes that Lancaster County has a rapidly growing population and that in conjunction with increasing congestion at surrounding air carrier facilities, there is a pressing need to extend runway 8-26 in order to provide a safer, more efficient environment for aircraft operators. This extension project should also contribute to economic growth in the Lancaster region. Accordingly, the Committee recommends the FAA provide the necessary funding for the environmental assessment of Lancaster Airport's proposed runway extension project. Diamond Head FAA combined center radar approach control [CERAP] relocation.--The relocation of the Diamond Head combined center radar approach control [CERAP] has been pending before the Congress since 1992. In 1992, the Congress approved the FAA's request to reprogram funds designated for the expansion of the Diamond Head facility in exchange for a commitment from the FAA to fund the relocation of the facility out of Diamond Head. Despite this commitment, the Congress found it necessary in fiscal year 1994 to instruct the FAA to fund the relocation of its facility out of Diamond Head crater. In fiscal year 1995, the Congress instructed the FAA to complete the site acquisition for this relocation. In response to the FAA's continuing lack of progress toward fulfilling these mandates, in fiscal year 1996, the Congress directed the FAA to prepare a report on what specific steps it will take to acquire a new site for this facility and complete its relocation. The Committee is concerned that the FAA is now considering reducing the operations and personnel of the CERAP rather than relocating existing operations and personnel as originally contemplated. Accordingly, the Committee directs the FAA to continue to pursue the relocation of existing operations and personnel to another location on Oahu. Southwest Florida International Airport [RSW], Fort Myers, FL.--According to the FAA's aviation system capacity plan, RSW is the third fastest growing airport in the country. Over the last 10 years, enplanements at RSW have grown at 9.2 percent annually with a projected future growth rate of 8 percent as compared to the national growth rate of 3.2 percent. Consequently, RSW has often found itself in the position of accommodating up to 27 overnight aircraft with only 14 gates. This has required closing portions of the only parallel taxiway at the airport, creating safety concerns and airline delays. The State of Florida and the Lee County Airport Authority have committed long-term State and local resources for enhancing the airport capacity. The Committee recognizes the need for RSW's expansion project to serve this rapidly growing region. Therefore, the Committee directs FAA to give priority consideration to RSW's request for airport improvement discretionary funds to continue its capital expansion program to meet future air service needs Computer reservation system [CRS].--The Committee is concerned with the Department's continuing inaction on the rulemaking petition filed in October 1994 by Alaska Airlines requesting that the Department amend its computer reservation system [CRS] regulations to prevent the impositions of CRS contractual provisions mandating a uniform CRS participation level. Although the Department's most recent Federal Register publication of its semiannual rulemaking agenda indicates that the Department has decided to issue a proposed rule to prohibit such mandatory parity clauses, no proposed rule has been published. Mandatory parity clauses compel airlines to purchase services they do not need and consequently impose unnecessary cost on both the airlines and consumers. The Committee, therefore, directs the Department to initiate a rulemaking on this issue to promptly address and resolve this problem. Facilities and Equipment (Airport and Airway Trust Fund) Appropriations, 1996.................................... $1,934,883,000 Rescission \1\...................................... -60,000,000 Budget estimate, 1997................................... 1,788,700,000 House allowance......................................... 1,800,000,000 Committee recommendation................................ 1,788,700,000 \1\ Rescission pursuant to Public Law 104-50, excludes rescission of $8,811,000 pursuant to section 31002 of Public Law 104-134. Under the ``Facilities and equipment'' appropriation, safety, capacity and efficiency of the Federal airway system are improved by the procurement and installation of new equipment and the construction and modernization of facilities to keep pace with aeronautical activity and in accordance with the Federal Aviation Administration's comprehensive capital investment plan [CIP], formerly called the national airspace system [NAS] plan. CIP MILESTONES FOR MAJOR SYSTEM ACQUISITIONS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Year of first-site implementation Year of last-site implementation ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- System name 1983 NAS 1983 NAS plan 1991 CIP 1993 CIP 1995 CIP 1996 CIP plan 1991 CIP 1993 CIP 1995 CIP 1996 CIP -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advanced automation system [AAS] 1990 1991 1991 ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) 1994 2001 2004 ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) Display system replacement [DSR]...................... .......... .......... .......... 1998 1998 .......... .......... .......... 2000 2000 Standard terminal automation replacement system [STARS]. .......... .......... .......... 1998 ( \2\ ) .......... .......... .......... 2003 ( \2\ ) Tower control computer complex [TCCC]............. .......... .......... .......... 1997 ( \3\ ) .......... .......... .......... 2000 ( \3\ ) Air route surveillance radar [ARSR-4]....................... 1988 1993 1994 1995 1996 1991 1996 1996 1997 1997 Airport surface detection equipment [ASDE-3]............. 1987 1992 1993 1993 1993 1990 1994 1996 1999 1999 Automated weather observing system [AWOS].................. 1986 1989 1989 1989 1989 1990 1997 1997 1997 2000 Central weather processor [CWP]. 1990 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1998 \4\ 1992 \4\ 1993 \4\ 1993 Flight service automation system [FSAS]......................... 1984 1991 1991 1991 1991 1989 1995 1994 1995 1995 Mode S.......................... 1988 1993 1994 1994 1994 1993 1996 1996 1996 1998 Radio microwave link [RML] replacement and expansion...... 1985 1986 1986 1986 1986 1989 1994 1993 1993 1993 Terminal doppler weather radar [TDWR]......................... ( \5\ ) 1993 1994 1994 1994 ( \5\ ) 1996 1996 \6\ 1996 ( \7\ ) Voice switching and control system [VSCS].................. 1989 1995 1995 1995 1995 1992 1997 1997 1997 1997 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The AAS Program has been restructured into three areas: En route [DSR], terminal [STARS], and tower [TCCC]. \2\ STARS schedule is currently being rebaselined. \3\ TCCC schedule is currently being rebaselined to reflect the incorporation of surface management advisory [SMA]. \4\ Dates denoted are for MWP I only. The CWP-RWP segment has been eliminated as a continuation of the CWP Program, and has been merged with MWP II into the Weather and Radar Processor [WARP] Program. \5\ The TDWR was not included in the 1983 NAS plan. \6\ Schedule under review for last-site implementation. \7\ TDWR last site implementation indefinite due to site availability and acquisition problems. Source: FAA 1983 NAS plan, 1991, 1993, 1995 CIP. REASONS FOR DELAY AND COST INCREASES IN CIP PROJECTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ System name Reasons for delay ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Advanced automation system In general, AAS delays were due to an [AAS]. overly ambitious plan, inadequate FAA oversight of the contractor, and ineffective resolution of requirements issues. The AAS Program has been restructured into three areas: En route, terminal, and tower. Air route surveillance radar Problems with the radar's development [ARSR-4]. and site preparation delayed first-site implementation. Testing took longer than originally expected. More recently, delays have occurred due to changes in system design and interface problems with other ATC systems. First site implementation delay occurred due to interface problems. Airport surface detection Original delays occurred because FAA and equipment [ASDE-3]. the contractor underestimated software complexity, FAA changed some requirements, and testing uncovered some performance problems. Software development, establishing remote towers, site selection/preparation, and the addition of seven systems have delayed the program. Automated weather observing Site prep, installation, and maintenance system [AWOS]. problems, as well as delays in receiving Government-furnished equipment contributed to original delays. Last site implementation delay occurred because communications funding shortfalls and installation delays of the communications infrastructure to deliver weather information. Central weather processor Early software development problems and [CWP]. software discrepancies during testing delayed the system in early stages. The program was descoped to just the CWP- MWP I segment, which is now fully implemented. Flight service automation Original delays occurred because of system [FSAS]. software development and testing problems with the Model I system. Scheduled for completion in 1995. Program implementation is complete. Mode S........................ Problems in developing hardware and software during initial phases delayed the system, and software problems caused a delay in first-site implementation. Implementation of the last site has been moved to 1998 due to en route interface problems. Radar microwave link [RML] In the early stages, site acquisition replacement and expansion. and prep problems delayed the system. Other delays occurred because of a change in the prime contractor and due to problems encountered during operational test and evaluation. Program implementation is complete. Terminal doppler weather radar Site availability and land acquisition [TDWR]. problems have delayed last-site implementation. Last site implementation remains indefinite. TDWR has experienced schedule delay because of site availability and land acquisition problems. Voice switching and control Early delays were due to the two system [VSCS]. prototype contractors having technical difficulties in meeting FAA's requirements for system reliability. Additional delays occurred because of software development and integration problems during the upgrade of the prototype to a production model. The implementation schedule has not changed since the 1991 CIP. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The bill includes an appropriation of $1,788,700,000 for the facilities and equipment of the Federal Aviation Administration. The Committee's recommended distributions of the funds for each of the major accounts are as follows: FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year Projects 1997 budget House allowance Committee estimate recommendation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Engineering, development, test, and evaluation: En route programs: Aviation weather services improvements................. $27,997,000 $27,997,000 $19,942,000 En Route Automation Program............................ 106,500,000 89,155,000 96,500,000 Oceanic automation system.............................. 40,600,000 40,600,000 25,600,000 Next generation UHF air/ground communication system.... 2,090,000 2,090,000 2,090,000 Voice switching and control system [VSCS]--EDT&E....... 13,300,000 13,300,000 13,300,000 ------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, en route programs.......................... 190,487,000 173,142,000 157,432,000 ================================================ Terminal programs: Terminal digital radar (ASR-11)........................ 23,300,000 ............... 20,000,000 Terminal Automation Program............................ 50,600,000 43,500,000 50,600,000 NAS infrastructure management system [NIMS]............ 11,600,000 ............... 6,000,000 Weather systems processor [WSP]........................ 8,055,000 ............... 8,055,000 Airport surface target identification system [ATIDS]... 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 ------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, terminal programs........................ 97,555,000 47,500,000 88,655,000 ================================================ Landing and navigational aids programs: Local area augmentation system [LAAS] for GPS.......... 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 Wide area augmentation system [WAAS]................... .............. 117,100,000 83,100,000 National satellite test bed............................ .............. 11,500,000 6,004,735 ------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, landing and navigational aids programs..... 6,000,000 134,600,000 95,104,735 ================================================ Research, test, and evaluation equipment and facilities: Independent operational test and evaluation [IOT&E] sup 3,500,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 FAA Technical Center facility--technical building lease 5,290,000 5,290,000 5,290,000 Utility plant modifications............................ 910,000 910,000 910,000 NAS improvement of system support laboratory........... 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 Technical Center facilities............................ 9,000,000 9,000,000 9,000,000 ------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, research, test, and evaluation equipment and facilities...................................... 20,700,000 20,700,000 20,700,000 ------------------------------------------------ Total, engineering, development, test, and evaluation 314,742,000 375,942,000 361,891,735 ================================================ Air traffic control facilities and equipment: En route programs: Long Range Radar [LRR] Program-- replace/establish..... 17,702,000 17,702,000 17,702,000 En Route Automation Program............................ 106,100,000 106,100,000 106,100,000 Air traffic operations management system [ATOMS]....... 2,650,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 Weather and radar processor [WARP]..................... 24,650,000 24,650,000 24,650,000 Aeronautical data link [ADL] applications.............. 17,425,000 17,425,000 17,425,000 ARTCC building improvements/plant improvements......... 71,659,700 62,083,000 64,333,000 Voice switching and control system [VSCS]............. 103,700,000 103,700,000 103,700,000 Remote communication facilities [RCF's]--expand/ relocate.............................................. 2,825,000 2,825,000 2,825,000 Air traffic management [ATM]........................... 40,360,000 30,960,000 40,300,000 Data multiplexing network [DMN]........................ 3,900,000 3,900,000 3,900,000 En route communications and control facilities improvement........................................... 3,265,800 3,265,800 3,265,800 Satellite communications circuit backup................ 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 DOD base closure--facility transfer.................... 500,000 500,000 500,000 Backup emergency communications [BUUEC]--interim....... 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 ATC beacon interrogator [ATCBI] replace- ment......... 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 Volcano monitor........................................ .............. ............... 2,000,000 Spectrum auction impact................................ .............. 45,000,000 45,000,000 ------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, en route programs........................ 400,737,500 425,111,500 438,700,800 ================================================ Terminal programs: Terminal doppler weather radar [TDWR]--provide......... 4,655,000 4,655,000 4,655,000 Mode S--provide........................................ 3,980,000 3,980,000 3,980,000 Terminal Automation Program............................ 27,700,000 27,700,000 16,300,000 Airport movement area safety system [AMASS]............ 15,393,000 15,393,000 15,393,000 Remote maintenance monitoring system [RMMS]--provide... 17,900,000 17,900,000 17,900,000 Terminal air traffic control facilities--replace....... 74,400,000 74,400,000 79,800,000 Air traffic control tower [ATCT]/TRACON facilites-- improve............................................... 16,354,850 16,354,850 16,354,850 Terminal voice switch replacement [TVSR]/enhanced terminal voice switch................................. 17,900,000 17,900,000 12,300,000 Terminal radar [ASR]--improve.......................... 4,445,390 4,445,390 4,445,390 Airport surface detection equipment [ASDE]--additional establishment......................................... 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 NAS facilities OSHA and environmental standards compliance............................................ 36,924,000 21,000,000 27,705,000 Chicago TRACON......................................... 2,900,000 2,900,000 2,900,000 New Austin Airport at Bergstrom........................ 16,900,000 16,900,000 16,900,000 Potomac TRACON......................................... 1,000,000 4,000,000 1,000,000 Southern California TRACON............................. 5,700,000 5,700,000 5,700,000 Denver TRACON.......................................... 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 Northern California TRACON............................. 8,700,000 2,700,000 8,700,000 Atlanta TRACON......................................... 500,000 3,500,000 500,000 Tower Automation Program............................... 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 Voice Recorder Replacement Program [VRRP]............. 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 Terminal communications improvements................... 3,406,225 3,406,225 3,406,225 GRR/GRT radio replacement.............................. .............. 20,000,000 .............. ------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, terminal programs.......................... 280,758,500 284,834,500 259,939,465 ================================================ Flight service programs: Automated surface observing system [ASOS]............. 1,369,000 1,369,000 11,275,000 FSAS operational and supportability implementation system [OASIS]........................................ 500,000 500,000 500,000 AWOS/ASOS augmentation................................. .............. ............... 550,000 Automated weather observing system [AWOS]............. .............. 1,000,000 .............. ------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, flight services.......................... 1,869,000 2,869,000 12,325,000 ================================================ Landing and Navigational Aids Program: Very high frequency omnidirectional radio range [VOR] with distance measuring equipment..................... 1,900,000 1,900,000 1,900,000 Instrument landing system [ILS]--establish/upgrade..... 1,500,000 1,500,000 2,900,000 Approach Lighting System Improvement Program [ALSIP]... 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 Low level windshear alert system [LLWAS]--upgrade...... 17,399,000 17,399,000 17,399,000 Runway visual range [RVR]--establish................... 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 Instrument approach procedures automation [IAPA]....... 2,400,000 2,400,000 2,400,000 Gulf of Mexico Offshore Program........................ 5,950,000 5,950,000 5,950,000 Instrument landing system [ILS]--replace GRN 27........ 9,000,000 9,000,000 9,000,000 Wide area augmentation system [WAAS]................... 74,500,000 ............... .............. Navigational and landing aids--improve................. 3,744,000 3,744,000 3,744,000 Loran-C upgrades....................................... .............. 5,650,000 3,650,000 Precision approach path indicators [PAPI].............. .............. ............... 3,125,000 Anemometers............................................ .............. ............... 375,000 ------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, landing and navigational aids.............. 121,393,000 52,543,000 55,443,000 ================================================ Other ATC facilities programs: Alaskan NAS interfacility communications system [ANICS] 12,000,000 12,000,000 12,000,000 Fuel storage tank replacement and monitoring........... 43,700,000 43,700,000 43,700,000 FAA buildings and equipment--improve/modernize......... 12,600,000 12,600,000 12,600,000 Electrical power systems--sustain/support.............. 15,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 Air navigational aids and air traffic control facilities (local projects)........................... 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 Air navigational facilities/air traffic control system support--provide...................................... 4,800,000 ............... .............. Aircraft and Related Equipment Program................. 4,900,000 4,900,000 4,900,000 Computer-aided engineering graphics [CAEG] replacement. 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 ------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, other ATC facility programs.............. 96,500,000 91,700,000 91,700,000 ------------------------------------------------ Total, air traffic control facilities and equipment 901,258,000 857,058,000 858,108,265 ================================================ Nonair traffic control facilities and equipment: Support equipment: NAS Management Automation Program [NASMAP]............. 1,300,000 ............... 1,300,000 Hazardous materials management......................... 18,000,000 15,000,000 18,000,000 National airspace system recovery communications [RCOM] 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 Aviation safety analysis system [ASAS]................. 19,400,000 19,400,000 19,400,000 Operational data management system [ODMS].............. 5,100,000 5,100,000 5,100,000 FAA employee housing--provide.......................... 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 Logistics support systems and facilities [LSSF]........ 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 Test equipment--maintenance support for replacement.... 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 Integrated flight quality assurance.................... 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 Safety performance analysis system [SPAS]............. 2,600,000 2,600,000 2,600,000 Performance enhancement system [PENS].................. 1,900,000 1,900,000 1,900,000 National Aviation Safety Data Center [ASAAP]........... 3,700,000 3,700,000 3,700,000 ------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, support equipment........................ 63,000,000 58,700,000 63,000,000 ================================================ Training, equipment, and facilities: Distance learning...................................... 7,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 National airspace system [NAS] training facilities..... 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 ------------------------------------------------ Subtotal, training, equipment, and facilities...... 8,000,000 4,500,000 4,000,000 ------------------------------------------------ Total, nonair traffic control facilities and equipment......................................... 71,000,000 63,200,000 67,000,000 ================================================ Mission support: System support and services: System engineering and development support............. 33,350,000 33,350,000 33,350,000 Program support leases................................. 29,600,000 29,600,000 29,600,000 Logistics support services [LSS]....................... 8,800,000 8,800,000 8,800,000 Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center-- lease.............. 15,500,000 15,500,000 15,500,000 In-plant national airspace system [NAS] contract support services...................................... 4,800,000 4,800,000 4,800,000 Transition engineering support......................... 49,450,000 49,450,000 49,450,000 Frequency and spectrum engineering..................... 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 Permanent change of station [PCS] moves................ 8,500,000 5,500,000 8,500,000 FAA corporate system architecture...................... 9,600,000 9,600,000 9,600,000 Technical services support contract [TSSC]............ 65,900,000 71,000,000 65,900,000 Resource Tracking Program [RTP]........................ 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 Center for Advanced System Development................. 57,000,000 57,000,000 57,000,000 ------------------------------------------------ Total, mission support............................... 284,700,000 286,800,000 284,700,000 ================================================ Personnel and related expenses................................. 217,000,000 217,000,000 217,000,000 ------------------------------------------------ Total, all activities.................................... 1,788,700,000 1,800,000,000 1,788,700,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- engineering, development, test, and evaluation The Committee recommends $361,891,735 for various engineering, development, test, and evaluation activities. In response to the Committee's longstanding concerns of cost growth and schedule delays, a major restructuring of the AAS Program was completed in 1995. From the technical standpoint, program risk has been reduced, software coding practices have been improved, and a greater emphasis has been placed on off-the-shelf hardware and software. The former AAS program has been separated into three product areas: (1) en route automation, (2) terminal automation, and (3) tower automation. These product areas are to improve FAA program management through increased accountability of these areas. En route automation includes the display system replacement [DSR] as a cost-effective modification to the initial sector suite system [ISSS]; display channel complex rehost [DCCR], a low-risk contingency system; advanced en route automation [AERA], enhancements providing direct benefits to airway users; en route software development support [ERSDS], maintains software in existing system; en route automation equipment, maintains existing hardware; flight data input/output [FDIO]; and en route stand alone radar training system [ESARTS]. En route programs Aviation weather services improvements.--The Committee has decreased the funding request for aviation weather services improvements by $8,055,000, due to a favorable contract bid received by FAA which was lower than originally budgeted. More nondevelopmental software was available for this program than was originally anticipated, and the Department has offered up this reduction so that more higher priority programs can be funded. En route automation program.--The Committee has provided $96,500,000 for the en route automation program. This is a reduction of $10,000,000 from the budget request. The Committee concurs in the House's observation that there are program savings of $10,000,000 available within this account from the advanced automation system termination liability cost savings. These funds should be available to FAA for this program. However, the Committee has restored the $7,345,000 that the House had cut from the advanced en route automation program [AERA]. The Committee believes that reducing these funds would result in a 1-year slippage of the AERA build one development and deployment activity, and that any user preferred routing savings based on the AERA program would be lost for a year. The Committee has long supported the AERA program, and believes that restitution of this funding is necessary. Oceanic automation system.--The oceanic automation system is a state-of-the-art platform that would provide improved air traffic control over the oceans. Of the amount requested, $40,600,000 would be used for continued development of the project, including $9,900,000 for program management and $29,900,000 for phase 2, which is new software development replacing flight data processing structure and software. The Committee understands that FAA is in the process of reducing the scope of the advanced oceanic automation system [AOAS] and cannot fully implement phase 2 as originally envisioned. Because of uncertainty over FAA's plans regarding this project, the Committee believes that one-half of the phase 2 developmental budget can be reduced, and that it would be prudent for FAA to wait for the Hughes-Canadian Government testing which is to occur this summer on a system that would be similar to, but an alternative to, FAA's current project description. Terminal programs Terminal digital radar (ASR-11).--The Committee has restored $20,000,000 for the terminal digital radar (ASR-11) program, which is a joint program with the Department of Defense and the Federal Aviation Administration. The funding requested for fiscal year 1997 by the administration would be used to procure a first article system, that is a joint FAA-DOD system, and to conduct testing to determine the operational suitability of the radar for both agencies. FAA anticipates that the system would be brought to production standards upon completion of testing. The Committee has restored most of the funding because it understands and appreciates that the ASR-7 radars that are currently in operation need to be replaced, due to their aging condition and parts unsupportability. In addition, FAA could possibly lose aircraft surveillance capability at all STARS locations which are currently connected to the ASR-7's. In addition, the Committee understands that FAA will need to soon embark on a program to replace or digitize the existing ASR-8's. Terminal automation program.--The Committee has restored the funding requested for the terminal automation program, also known as standard terminal automation replacement system [STARS]. The fiscal year 1997 request is the first year on the STARS production contract. It is currently planned to be awarded at the end of fiscal year 1996 and the 1997 funds are necessary for the development and testings of those facilities that would be required to meet initial operational readiness dates. In addition, the Committee does not agree with the House's position adding $2,000,000 for the surface movement advisor [SMA] to the terminal automation budget. Funding for SMA is contained in another budget line item, and additional funds above that requested for fiscal year 1997 are not needed. NAS infrastructure management.--The Committee has restored $6,000,000 for the NAS infrastructure management program, which is the management system being used to coordinate the consolidation of multiple aging and obsolete control centers into fewer, state-of-the-art facilities. Given the emphasis to consolidate and develop state-of-the-art TRACON's which are underway, the Committee believes that the elimination of this funding would be detrimental to FAA's previous plans and the Committee's direction to consolidate air traffic facilities where and when possible. Weather systems processor.--The Committee has restored the full amount requested for the weather systems processor program. Funds in fiscal year 1997 would be used for initial contract award for the procurement of three full-scale development prototype weather systems processors. These processors would provide terminal weather radar capability at those ASR equipped airports that do not have terminal doppler weather radars. The Committee has provided this funding believing that FAA needs to find a weather radar solution at existing airports. The Committee does not take a position as to whether the weather systems processor is the answer, or whether the terminal area surveillance system, which is a next generation phased array radar, could replace both the ASR-9's and terminal doppler weather radars at airports. The Committee is concerned that there are a number of line items in the FAA's facilities and equipment and research, engineering, and development budgets which basically are intended to produce the same solution. The Committee is concerned that FAA has many different approaches that it is following and is not, at this date, able to decide on the best way to proceed. The provision of this money does not necessarily mean that the Committee, at a later date, would support the procurement of the 33 weather system processors which are estimated to cost $73,000,000; but does support at least the development of prototypes of systems processors to see if they are the answer to terminal weather problems. Landing and navigational aids programs Wide area augmentation system [WAAS].--The Committee has not provided the additional funding of $42,600,000 contained in the House allowance for the wide area augmentation system. It should be pointed out that the House Committee increased the funds and has identified that approximately $34,000,000 in additional funding might be necessary in order to cover prime contract costs that exceeded the original program estimates due to the Wilcox contract termination and the subsequent renegotiation with Hughes. The Committee understands that additional funding might be essential to continue the safety critical software development and system engineering for the initial WAAS operational implementation. However, FAA should have been cognizant of this and understood that slippages in software and development were a byproduct of a contract termination and, due to budget constraints, the Committee cannot provide the additional funding at this particular time. The Committee, however, has provided the $8,600,000 which was transferred from the ``Operations'' account for leased communications. National satellite test bed.--The Committee supports the House increase for additional funds for the national satellite test bed; however, due to budget constraints, has provided $6,004,735. This funding would be used to support implementation of augmentation systems that would be used to improve the accuracy, integrity, and availability of GPS. The national satellite test bed should provided FAA with the capability to monitor and evaluate in parallel the functions and processes developed by the WAAS contractor for each component as developed by the contractor. AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT En route programs Air traffic operations management [ATOMS].--The Committee concurs with the House's position regarding the air traffic operations management system. The funding provided, $1,000,000, is the same funding level as appropriated for fiscal year 1996. In light of other, higher-priority programs, the Committee concurs with the House's reduction. Air route traffic control center [ARTCC] improvement/plant modernization/space expansion.--FAA is requesting $71,659,700 to perform needed modernization and expansion at its ARTCC's to accommodate new equipment that will modernize controller displays and communications systems. The Committee has provided $64,333,000, this includes $250,000 for the relocation of the emergency operations facility in Kenai, AK, to the Anchorage Air Route Traffic Control Center. Air traffic management.--The Committee has provided $40,300,000 for the air traffic management function, which is the same level as that provided in fiscal year 1996 and has not assumed that the $3,300,000 for the Herndon, VA, facility's lease payments under the ``Operations'' account. Volcano monitor.--The Committee has included additional funding for the Alaska Volcano Observatory for equipment and data transmission facilities on suspect volcanoes across the Alaska peninsula and the Aleutian Islands. Spectrum auction impact.--Congress enacted legislation that has resulted in the sale of aeronautical radio spectrum used for operation of FAA long-range radars and FAA microwave radio communications links. As a result of these sales, FAA must relinquish operation of some of its communication and radar systems effective January 1, 1999. FAA is the largest single Government user of radio spectrum, and each frequency assignment supports safety, capacity, and efficiency. Therefore, the loss of such spectrum required for existing and future airspace operations could have serious impacts on the aviation traffic services provided. Proceeds from the spectrum auction have generated more than $20,000,000,000 to date. However, none of these funds have been provided as compensation to the Federal Aviation Administration since they were affected by the frequency loss. In December 1995, the FAA was told that no reimbursement would be made from those sales, and that it was up to the FAA to convert the agency's communications and radar systems to other frequencies. During the formulation of the fiscal year 1997 budget, FAA was not fully aware of the impact of these sales, or the decision regarding nonreimbursement for frequency loss. Therefore, the Department concurs with the increase which has been proposed by the House. The understanding is, however, that FAA must relinquish operation of only some of these frequencies effective January 1, 1999, or fiscal year 2000. The Committee understands that, in addition to the funding that has been provided this year, $45,000,000, that as much as an additional $40,000,000 might be required in fiscal year 1998 or 1999. The Committee will work with FAA in the development of next year's budget in order to identify sources of funding to pay for the necessary reengineering. Terminal programs Terminal automation program.--The Committee has reduced the terminal automation program by $11,400,000 because it is unclear as to how and when FAA will use the standard terminal automation replacement system at Dallas-Fort Worth for the center TRACON automation system demonstration. There is considerable uncertainty surrounding the STARS software development, which has the potential to delay system implementation. The Committee understands that on October 1, 1996, FAA plans to award a STARS production contract to one of the competing vendors, and that the existing schedule would call for system testing to be completed in November 1998 and first site implementation in December 1998. However, the Committee understands that FAA is currently rebaselining the STARS cost and schedule estimates, because the STARS software development costs are escalating, and that the original estimate for software development was 90,000 lines of new modified code, but current estimates place these lines of code modifications for TRACON's at nearly 300,000. Because of this, FAA has yet to prepare a plan for developing the STARS hardware and software needed at the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport to develop, test, and support the center TRACON automation system. The Committee has provided $4,800,000 to sustain DBRITE equipment until STARS is deployed, and another $1,500,000 to develop and implement new terminal operational software and $10,000,000 for STARS software and hardware development. Airport movement area safety system [AMASS].--The administration has requested $15,393,000 for the procurement and installation of 14 production systems of the airport movement area safety system [AMASS]. It is the Committee's understanding that meetings were held as late as May 1996 for the rebaselining of AMASS program dates and costs, and that decisions have still not been made since the cost estimates made 3 years ago are not consistent with the proposed costs being submitted by present contractors. Because of these slippages, original schedules have been delayed, the contract award for the full-scale development models is currently being negotiated, and the initial production contract will most likely be awarded in January 1997. Under this schedule, the full-scale development systems could not be completed until March 1998, and at that time approval would be exercised for full-scale production systems. Therefore, the Committee believes the full amount requested can be deferred because under the new schedule, production models will not be ordered until, at the earliest, June 1998, and that unobligated balances of approximately $12,000,000 from prior years should be sufficient to allow FAA to order three full-scale development models and six to seven initial production systems. The Committee, however, has provided the amount requested only because the program is vitally important for safety reasons but it reserves the right to revisit this issue in conference. Terminal air traffic control facilities, replace.--The Committee has provided funding above that requested for the construction of the Merrill Field air traffic control tower. These funds would be used to replace the approximately 40-year- old control tower that is presently located at the field. Terminal voice switch replacement/enhancement.--The Committee has reduced the requested funding for this program by $5,600,000. It is the Committee's understanding that, out of the 26 switches in the original fiscal year 1997 budget estimate, as many as 15 would not be ordered until late fiscal year 1997 or early 1998, and that these 15 switches would not be delivered to the field until the first quarter of fiscal year 1999 at the earliest. Therefore, the Committee believes that the funding associated with these 15 switches can be deferred until fiscal year 1998. NAS facilities/OSHA and environmental compliance.--The Committee has provided a total $27,705,000 for OSHA and environmental standards compliance. This restores $6,705,000 of the House's cut. Potomac TRACON.--The Committee has provided the full amount requested for Potomac TRACON, which was $1,000,000. The House had included funding above that requested for this particular project. The Committee believes that the administration's request is sufficient to meet proposed program initiatives for the Potomac TRACON. FAA is currently reviewing proposals for the location of this TRACON, and additional funding as proposed by the House is not necessary at this time. Northern California TRACON.--The Committee has provided the full amount requested for the northern California TRACON, which was $8,700,000. The House's allowance had reduced this project by over $6,000,000. The Committee believes the reduction of this funding is inappropriate, and that there is a definite high operational need for fully funding this request. Existing facilities this new TRACON replaces are in poor condition and cannot be expanded. Funding requested was based on a schedule which would allow for a November 2000 commissioning date. Fiscal year 1997 funds were intended for site development, power system procurement, program management, and system engineering support. Funding at the House's level would limit these activities to only site development, and could push this project's commissioning back by several years. Atlanta TRACON.--The House has included $3,500,000 for an Atlanta TRACON, $3,000,000 of this funding was not requested by the administration. The Committee has provided the amount requested to complete land acquisition, environmental impact statements, and preliminary engineering work. GRR/GRT radio replacement.--The Committee has not provided the funding included in the House allowance ($20,000,000 above the administration's request) because the current radio system is based on a design that was first formulated in the forties and consists of voice-based networks that use an antiquated modulation system. Given the increasing difficulties in providing new frequencies to air traffic controllers, and frequency congestion often experienced in metropolitan areas, the Committee supports the new digital radios which are under development by the Federal Aviation Administration, which it believes will effectively increase frequencies available by a factor of 4 to 5. Flight service programs Automated surface observing system [ASOS].--The Committee has provided $11,275,000 for ASOS, which is $9,906,000 above the House level and the administration's request. The Committee notes that the administration did not request any funding for procurement of ASOS. However, the FAA has identified a need for ASOS implementation funding to satisfy more than 200 sites in fiscal year 1997 and beyond, with a hard requirement for 55 systems in fiscal year 1997. The Committee reiterates its concern for the unfunded shortfall and encourages the FAA to close the gap of installed versus commissioned sites as expeditiously as possible. The Committee provides an additional $10,000,000 to ASOS for the procurement of 55 ASOS units to satisfy the identified fiscal year 1997 requirement and requests the FAA to submit anticipated program requirements for future years. The Committee has also included $1,275,000 for the 44 ASOS units in Alaska that still neeed to be commissioned. AWOS/ASOS augmentation.--The Committee has provided additional funding above that requested for the installation of 10 closed-circuit television systems to supplement the existing AWOS/ASOS weather systems in the State of Alaska. Based on information provided by regional FAA authorities, the approximate cost for each unit is $45,000 to $55,000, based on their experience with existing units in the field. Automated weather observing system [AWOS].--The Committee has not provided any funding for AWOS. The funds provided by the House were not requested. Landing and navigational aids program Instrument landing system [ILS] establish/upgrade.--The Committee has included $1,400,000 above the request for a CAT I with MALSR support for runway 36Right at Huntsville-Madison County Airport, AL. The Committee understands that this installation has received a benefit-to-cost finding of 2.33. Wide area augmentation system [WAAS].--Funding for the wide area augmentation system has been moved from the air traffic control facilities and equipment procurement activity to the engineering, development, test, and evaluation activity under landing and navigational aids programs. Loran-C upgrades.--The House has provided $5,650,000 for loran-C upgrades which were not requested by the administration. The FAA has appealed this funding, stating that the agency will continue to rely on the technology enhancements offered by the global positioning system technology, which is fundamental to future navigation and landing automation plans. The present radio navigation plan which has been adopted by several governmental agencies calls for the phaseout of the loran-C radio navigation system by the year 2000. In addition, the estimated total cost of loran-C between fiscal year 2000 and 2015 would be approximately $350,000,000, which the agency cannot afford. Continuation of the WAAS system will permit the orderly removal of ground-based navigation systems, including loran-C. FAA believes it cannot financially sustain nor justify on a cost-benefit basis maintaining two navigation systems at the same time. The Committee has provided $3,650,000 above the administration's request for the loran-C upgrade program. Of this amount, $650,000 is to be used for the automatic blink system upgrade. The Committee is concerned that the radio navigation plan which called for the phasing out of the loran-C program by the year 2000 was based on an optimistic assumption regarding the immediate and successful implementation and commissioning of the GPS system. In order to maintain and upgrade the existing loran-C systems and to reduce maintenance costs associated with those systems, the Committee has provided $3,000,000 above that requested by the administration for upgrade and modernization of existing systems. Precision approach path indicators [PAPI].--The Committee has provided $3,125,000 for the PAPI navigational aid systems. The Committee has included funding with the understanding that FAA intends to replace existing visual approach slope indicators with PAPI, and funds are needed to prevent existing production lines from being closed. Anemometers.--The Committee has provided $375,000 for three off-airport anemometers for wind direction and speed measurement at Juneau International Airport, AK. Other ATC facilities programs Air navigation facilities--provide.--The Committee has agreed with the House's reduction for the air navigation facilities request, which has been deleted because of budget constraints. It is the Committee's understanding that the Department can accept this reduction given the need to fund other, more high priority programs. major equipment activity TERMINAL DOPPLER WEATHER RADAR ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- City Delivery dates Commissioning dates ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oklahoma City--FAA Academy............... Dec. 9, 1991 \1\.................... NA Memphis.................................. June 2, 1992 \1\.................... Dec. 13, 1994. Houston Intercontinental................. Oct. 2, 1992 \1\.................... July 21, 1994. Atlanta.................................. Jan. 13, 1993 \1\................... Dec. 21, 1995. Washington National...................... July 8, 1993 \1\.................... Jan. 4, 1996. Denver................................... July 6, 1993 \1\.................... Aug. 11, 1995. Chicago O'Hare........................... Sept. 17, 1993 \1\.................. June 1996.\2\ St. Louis................................ Jan. 3, 1994 \1\.................... Feb. 1, 1995. Orlando.................................. Mar. 17, 1994 \1\................... Apr. 23, 1996. New Orleans.............................. Apr. 2, 1994 \1\.................... Mar. 18, 1996. Tampa.................................... May 16, 1994 \1\.................... Apr. 2, 1996. Miami.................................... June 6, 1994 \1\.................... June 1996.\2\ Pittsburgh............................... July 10, 1994 \1\................... Do. Andrews.................................. Aug. 13, 1994 \1\................... Do. Newark................................... ...do............................... To be determined.\3\ Boston................................... Aug. 29, 1994 \1\................... Jan. 9, 1996. Kansas City.............................. Oct. 2, 1994 \1\.................... July 18, 1995. Detroit.................................. Oct. 15, 1994 \1\................... June 1996.\2\ Houston Hobby............................ Apr. 8, 1995 \2\.................... Do. Dallas Love.............................. Nov. 1, 1994 \1\.................... Jan. 31, 1996. Oklahoma City--PSF facility.............. Dec. 8, 1994 \1\.................... NA Dallas/Fort Worth........................ Jan. 30, 1995 \1\................... May 1996.\2\ Dayton................................... Dec. 19, 1994 \1\................... To be determined. Wichita.................................. Feb. 6, 1995 \1\.................... Sept. 5, 1995. Indianapolis............................. Mar. 5, 1995 \1\.................... June 1996.\2\ Cincinnati............................... Dec. 9, 1995 \1\.................... July 1996.\2\ Philadelphia............................. August 1995 \1\..................... June 1996.\2\ Phoenix.................................. Mar. 29, 1996....................... September 1996.\2\ Milwaukee................................ May 12, 1995........................ July 1996.\2\ Chicago Midway........................... To be determined \3\................ To be determined.\3\ Cleveland................................ September 7, 1995................... June 1996.\2\ Columbus................................. Nov. 10, 1995....................... June 1996.\2\ San Juan................................. To be determined \3\................ To be determined.\3\ West Palm Beach.......................... June 8, 1995 \1\.................... May 1996.\2\ Nashville................................ May 1996 \2\........................ October 1996.\2\ Louisville............................... August 1996 \2\..................... December 1996.\2\ Washington Dulles........................ Jan. 9, 1996........................ August 1996.\2\ Charlotte................................ July 7, 1995 \1\.................... Dec. 22, 1995.\2\ Salt Lake City........................... Nov. 10, 1995....................... July 1996.\2\ Fort Lauderdale.......................... To be determined \3\................ To be determined.\3\ Baltimore................................ Jan, 5, 1996........................ July 1996.\2\ Raleigh/Durham........................... May 1996 \2\........................ November 1996.\2\ Minneapolis.............................. ...do............................... October 1996.\2\ Oklahoma City............................ Apr. 1, 1996........................ September 1996.\2\ Tulsa.................................... August 1996 \2\..................... December 1996.\2\ New York City (JFK and LGA) \4\.......... To be determined \3\................ To be determined.\3\ Las Vegas \4\............................ To be determined \3\................ To be determined.\3\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ FAA has completed contract inspection and acceptance of equipment. \2\ Date indicated is for planning purposes only, subject to change; commissioning date to be established after FAA actually accepts equipment. \3\ These locations are not yet scheduled for implementation due to delays encountered in resolving environmental issues and public opposition, and in acquiring land. \4\ The radar for New York City will serve both JFK and LGA airports; the radar planned for LGA is relocated in Las Vegas. NA: Not available. AIRPORT SURFACE DETECTION EQUIPMENT [ASDE-3] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Commissioning Site location Delivery date date ------------------------------------------------------------------------ FAA Academy \1\............... NA................... NA FAA Technical Center \2\...... NA................... NA Pittsburgh, PA................ December 1989........ May 1996. San Francisco................. November 1991........ October 1995. Dallas/Fort Worth............. February 1992........ March 1995. Philadelphia.................. ...do................ March 1996. Los Angeles \3\............... August 1992.......... April 1995. Detroit....................... ...do................ December 1994. Cleveland..................... ...do................ Do. Boston........................ ...do................ March 1995. Portland...................... ...do................ December 1994. Atlanta....................... September 1992....... January 1995. Seattle....................... September 1992....... December 1993. Los Angeles \4\............... February 1993........ February 1995. Denver (DIA) \3\ \4\.......... March 1993........... May 1995. St. Louis..................... December 1993........ February 1995. Denver (DIA) \4\.............. ...do................ October 1995. New York-Kennedy.............. January 1994......... February 1995. Minneapolis................... July 1994............ March 1995. Anchorage..................... August 1994.......... October 1995. New Orleans................... October 1994......... September 1995. Baltimore..................... November 1994........ June 1995. Kansas City................... December 1994........ May 1995. Miami......................... February 1995........ August 1996. Houston \3\................... ...do................ August 1995. Memphis....................... June 1995............ October 1996. Chicago....................... ...do................ April 1996. Houston \3\................... August 1996.......... August 1997. Charlotte \5\................. November 1997........ November 1998. Raleigh-Durham \5\............ February 1998........ February 1999. Washington National........... January 1996......... May 1997. Cincinnati \5\................ October 1995......... July 1996. Dulles \5\.................... November 1996........ November 1997. San Diego \5\................. November 1995........ December 1996. Orlando \5\................... May 1998............. May 1999. Andrews AFB................... November 1998........ November 1999. Orange County \5\............. February 1999........ Do. Las Vegas \6\................. February 1997........ February 1998. New York-LaGuardia............ August 1998.......... August 1999. Newark........................ August 1997.......... August 1998. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\ FAA training/field support/depot support facility. \2\ FAA R&D system for runway incursion. \3\ Dual sensor facilities. \4\ Second system was procured in fiscal year 1993. \5\ Fiscal year 1993 congressionally mandated sites. \6\ Formerly Tampa. Instrument landing systems--establish Location Runway CAT I site: Detroit Metro, MI............................................. 22 Huntsville-Madison, AL........................................ 36R Note.--Changing conditions at airport locations may dictate that installation priorities be modified. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Instrument landing systems--GRN-27--replace Location Runway Tulsa, OK......................................................... 36R Dayton (International), OH........................................ 06L Minneapolis, MN................................................... 29L Omaha, NE......................................................... 14R San Antonio, TX................................................... 12R LaGuardia, NY..................................................... 22 Charlotte-Douglas, NC............................................. 36L Eugene, OR........................................................ 16 Memphis, TN....................................................... 36L Atlanta, GA....................................................... 08R Jacksonville, FL.................................................. 07 Chattanooga, TN................................................... 20 Birmingham, AL.................................................... 05 Greer, SC......................................................... 03 Columbia, SC...................................................... 11 Shreveport, LA.................................................... 14 Tampa, FL......................................................... 36L San Francisco, CA................................................. 28R Sacramento, CA.................................................... 16R Omaha, NE......................................................... 14R Huntsville, AL.................................................... 18R Covington, KY..................................................... 36L FAA Depot, OK........................................................... Atlanta, GA....................................................... 08L Do............................................................ 09R Raleigh, NC....................................................... 05R New Orleans, LA................................................... 10 Nashville, TN..................................................... 02L Note.--Changing conditions at airport locations may dictate that installation priorities be modified. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Runway visual range Andrews AFB, MD Atlantic City, NJ Baltimore, MD Cincinnati, OH Columbus, OH Detroit (YIP), MI Hayannis, MA Martha's Vineyard, MA Nantucket, MA Boise, ID Billings, MT Casper, WY Augusta, GA Birmingham, AL Shreveport, LA Alliance, TX Beaumont/Port Arthur, TX El Paso, TX Grand Rapids, MI Burbank, CA Boise, ID Note.--Changing conditions at airport locations may dictate that installation priorities be modified. Terminal air traffic control facilities Funding for terminal air traffic control facilities started in 1989-93: Fort Smith, AR Houston (IAH), TX Roswell, NM Los Angeles, CA Moses Lake, WA Allentown, PA St. Louis (ATCT), MO Chicago (O'Hare), IL Helena, MT Montgomery, AL Minneapolis, MN Pontiac, MI Covington, KY San Juan, PR Chicago (Midway), KY San Diego, CA St. Louis (ASDE), MO Santa Barbara, CA Mobile (Brookley), AL Worcester, MA St. Paul, MN Islip, NY Bangor, ME Salt Lake City (ATCT), UT Everett, WA Phase III for terminal air traffic control facilities started in fiscal year 1995 and before: Windsor Locks, CT Merrill, AK Portland OR Salt Lake City (TRACON), UT Phase II funding for terminal air traffic control facilities started in fiscal year 1996 and before: Champaign, IL Bedford, MA Albany, NY Little Rock, AR Dallas (Addison), TX Salina, KS Syracuse, NY Newport News, VA Roanoke, VA Newburgh, NY Houston (Hobby), TX Phase I funding for terminal air traffic control facilities to be started in fiscal year 1997: Abilene, TX East St. Louis, IL Seattle (ATCT), WA Riverside, CA Richmond, VA Savannah, GA Boston (TRACON), MA Merrill Field, AK nonair traffic control facilities and equipment Support equipment NAS management automation program.--The Committee has provided $1,300,000, the original amount requested. The House provided no funding for this activity. The Committee believes that the restored funding is necessary to achieve more cost- efficient management of the national airspace system infrastructure. Hazardous materials management.--The Committee has restored the $3,000,000 which was cut by the House's action for hazardous materials management. FAA has appealed that the reductions proposed by the House would not enable them to meet all requirements for activities planned at currently known contamination sites. The FAA's Technical Center is listed on the national priorities list, and has numerous site cleanup actions underway. Located within the Technical Center boundaries is the Atlantic City reservoir, which is owned and operated by the Atlantic City municipal utilities. The Technical Center is surrounded by many waterways that ultimately drain into the city's reservoir. Any delays in the agreed-upon cleanup of known sites at the Technical Center could jeopardize the status of the city's water supply and cause tremendous liability for the agency and jeopardize the drinking water of the city. Therefore, the Committee has restored this funding, and places a high priority on response to known hazardous materials sites. Training, equipment and facilities Distance learning.--The Committee concurs with the House's observation regarding the distance learning project as proposed by the FAA. The Committee has heard from a number of the unions that support the inspector general's report on the interactive video teletraining. The full scale acquisition activities should be examined in light of FAA's need to invest in quality training for its existing work force. The Committee believes that on-the-job training at the FAA Academy would be a better investment given the current climate, the need for hazardous materials training, and the need to keep the experience levels of systems specialists up to date. mission support Permanent change of station [PCS].--The Committee is on the record for several years questioning the management of the permanent change of station program by FAA, and believes that FAA has expanded the scope and payment of PCS moves beyond necessary levels. The Committee believes, however, that the House reduction of $3,000,000 is unwise, The Committee believes that with the possible closure of 16 nonautomated flight service stations in 1997 these funds are necessary to move the employees scheduled to be displaced. Technical services support contract [TSSC].--The Committee has provided the full amount requested for the technical services support contract, which was $65,900,000, and has not provided the increase of $5,100,000 as proposed by the House. The warehouse equipment issue regarding spare parts, though serious, is something that could be more effectively addressed through the use of FAA's existing personnel and optimization and coordination of facilities and equipment programs. The Committee believes that the current FAA request is sufficient to accomplish the program requirements. personnel and related expenses Personnel and related expenses.--The Committee has provided the full amount requested, $217,000,000, which is the same as the House allowance. Installation of CASA--reductions of delays.--Over the last 2 years, the Committee has repeatedly voiced concerns regarding the implementation timeline for the controller automating spacing aid, also known as converging runway display aid [CRDA]. This is an important feature of the FAA's automated radar tracking system IIIA and a feature which is currently being adapted to the ARTS IIIE system which is in use at the New York terminal radar approach control facility [TRACON]. The CRDA (in combination with the ARTS IIIE) greatly enhances the ability to use two runways safely during instrument weather conditions and, therefore, increases airport capacity and reduces delays. The Committee notes that there has been inadequate progress made on final installation/implementation of CRDA for Newark International Airport--in fact, the original deadline has slipped at least 6 months from September 1996 to March 1997. The Committee has recently received verbal assurances from the FAA that with the appropriate priority placed on this project, CRDA could be fully operational by March 1997. Therefore, the Committee directs the FAA to take all steps necessary to make the CRDA fully operational by the March 1997 deadline. Recent reports of extraordinary delays at Newark International Airport serve as a reminder that there is a need for meaningful and timely action at the highest levels of FAA to take all steps necessary to further reduce delays at Newark. Research, Engineering, and Development (Airport and Airway Trust Fund) Appropriations, 1996.................................... $185,698,000 Budget estimate, 1997................................... 195,700,000 House allowance......................................... 185,000,000 Committee recommendation 187,000,000 This appropriation finances research, engineering, and development programs to improve the national air traffic control system by increasing its safety, security, productivity, and capacity. The programs are designed to meet the expected air traffic demands of the future and to promote flight safety. The major objectives are to keep the current system operating safely and efficiently; to protect the environment; and to modernize the system through improvements in facilities, equipment, techniques, and procedures in order to insure that the system will safely and efficiently handle the volume of aircraft traffic expected to materialize in the future. The bill includes $187,000,000 for research, engineering, and development. This level is $8,700,000 below the budget request and $2,000,000 above the House allowance. The Committee suggests the following allocation: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year Fiscal year 1996 1997 budget House Committee appropriation estimate allowance recommendation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- System development and infrastructure: System planning and resource management.......... $2,000,000 $4,857,000 $1,860,000 $2,000,000 Technical laboratory facility.................... 8,000,000 6,765,000 6,200,000 6,765,000 Center for advanced aviation system development [CAASD]......................................... ............. 5,200,000 5,200,000 5,200,000 ---------------------------------------------------------- Subtotal..................................... 10,000,000 16,822,000 13,260,000 13,965,000 ========================================================== Capacity and air traffic management technology: Air traffic management technology................ 3,500,000 6,757,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 Oceanic automation program....................... 8,000,000 6,539,000 6,539,000 6,539,000 Runway incursion reduction....................... 4,000,000 2,766,000 2,766,000 7,400,000 System capacity, planning, and improvements...... 9,000,000 8,950,000 8,950,000 8,950,000 Cockpit technology............................... 6,700,000 5,584,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 General Aviation and Vertical Technology Flight Program......................................... 2,600,000 3,894,000 3,000,000 2,600,000 Modeling, analysis, and simulation............... 3,400,000 4,133,000 4,133,000 3,800,000 Automation system design......................... ............. 1,947,000 ............ 1,000,000 ---------------------------------------------------------- Subtotal..................................... 37,200,000 40,570,000 32,388,000 37,289,000 ========================================================== Communications, navigation, and surveillance: Communications................................... 10,000,000 10,798,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 Navigation....................................... 13,000,000 9,573,000 15,000,000 11,573,000 Surveillance..................................... ............. ............ ............ 2,000,000 ---------------------------------------------------------- Subtotal....................................... 23,000,000 20,371,000 21,000,000 19,573,000 ========================================================== Weather.............................................. 6,493,000 6,411,000 13,000,000 10,000,000 Airport technology................................... 6,000,000 6,000,000 5,200,000 6,000,000 Aircraft safety technology: Fire research and safety......................... 5,700,000 6,993,000 6,993,000 6,993,000 Advanced materials/structural safety............. 2,000,000 3,065,000 3,065,000 3,065,000 Propulsion and fuel systems...................... 3,400,000 3,779,000 3,779,000 3,400,000 Flight safety/atmospheric hazards research....... 4,713,000 2,063,000 2,063,000 2,063,000 Aging aircraft................................... 20,000,000 13,889,000 13,889,000 13,889,000 Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention research 2,705,000 3,094,000 2,705,000 3,094,000 Aviation safety risk analysis.................... ............. 6,116,000 2,500,000 4,000,000 ---------------------------------------------------------- Subtotal....................................... 37,978,000 38,999,000 34,994,000 36,504,000 ========================================================== System security technology: Explosives and weapons detection................. 29,000,000 27,397,000 27,397,000 27,397,000 Airport security technology integra- tion....... 1,000,000 2,258,000 2,258,000 2,258,000 Aviation security human factors.................. 2,549,000 5,039,000 2,542,000 3,549,000 Aircraft hardening............................... 3,496,000 1,361,000 1,361,000 1,361,000 ---------------------------------------------------------- Subtotal....................................... 36,045,000 36,045,000 33,558,000 34,565,000 ========================================================== Human factors and aviation medicine: Flightdeck/maintenance/system integration human factors......................................... 11,182,000 10,898,000 11,500,000 10,898,000 Air traffic control/airway facilities human factors......................................... 10,000,000 8,606,000 10,500,000 8,606,000 Aeromedical research............................. 2,500,000 4,178,000 4,000,000 3,800,000 ---------------------------------------------------------- Subtotal....................................... 23,682,000 23,682,000 26,000,000 23,304,000 ========================================================== Environment and energy............................... 3,800,000 3,800,000 3,600,000 3,800,000 Innovative/cooperative research...................... 1,500,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 ========================================================== Total.......................................... 185,698,000 195,700,000 185,000,000 187,000,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The objectives of and Committee recommendations for the 10 major activities in FAA's Research, Engineering, and Development Program are discussed below. system development and infrastructure Objectives: To provide (1) a systems engineering approach and benefit/cost analyses to the development of a comprehensive research, engineering, and development program and (2) visibility, accountability, coordination, and control of the research, engineering, and development activities. Advisory committee.--The Aviation Safety Research Act of 1988 directed FAA to establish an advisory committee to provide a strategic look at those research and development efforts that would encourage FAA to take advantage of current technology and interface with activities being performed with other Government agencies and research laboratories. The Committee believes that this is a good use of Federal funds and has fully funded the $280,000 estimated for the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics [RTCA]. FAA Technical Center--Laboratory.--The House has reduced the administration's request by $565,000 for work at the FAA Technical Center. The Committee fully funds the administration request. Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development [CAASD].-- The Committee supports the House position which fully funds CAASD, which is for the Mitre support contract. capacity and air traffic management technology Objectives: To ensure that air traffic management operations safety is maintained and then improved, to increase system capacity and utilization of existing airspace and airport resources, and to accommodate greater user flexibility and efficiency. Air traffic management technology.--The House has reduced the air traffic management technology category by $2,757,000. The Committee believes that restoration of these funds is not necessary and agrees that this long-term research can be reduced in order to fund more pressing safety-related research. The funding provided, $4,000,000, is a 14-percent increase over the 1996 funding level. Runway incursion reduction.--The Committee has provided $4,634,000 above the administration's request for the runway incursion reduction program, with the understanding that these funds be used to continue vital research in a number of areas with the goal of preventing and reducing the possibilities of runway incursions. With the myriad number of movements on airport surfaces, including catering trucks, baggage handling trucks, fire and police equipment, small general aviation aircraft, and large scheduled and unscheduled jets, the Committee feels very strongly that the FAA needs to do more in the area of runway incursion. A major concern expressed by the National Transportation Safety Board is the increased number of incidents reported on runway surfaces and surrounding areas. Whether these incidents are due to poorly lighted runways, bad signage, pilot error, or bad weather, the Committee is determined that research in this vital area continue. The Committee was disappointed to see that the administration had requested less funding for this activity in 1997 than had been provided in fiscal year 1996. There are a number of competing technologies that could be employed, including improvements to the airport movement advisory system [AMASS] and the airport surface detection equipment [ASDE]; loop technologies; and stop bars, which are widely used in European countries. The Committee does not take a position on the advisability of any one particular product or solution, but encourages FAA to continue research in this area. Cockpit technology.--The Committee has reduced the administration's request under the cockpit technology by $2,584,000 due to higher priorities than the TCAS-IV research. General Aviation and Vertical Flight Technology Program.-- The Committee has provided $2,600,000 for the Vertical Flight Program, the same as that provided in fiscal year 1996. Modeling analysis and simulation.--The Committee has provided $3,800,000 for modeling analysis and simulation, which is $400,000 above the fiscal year 1996 level. Automation system design.--The House has eliminated funding for this activity. The Committee believes that this research is operationally driven and can safely be reduced to $1,000,000. communications, navigation, and surveillance Objectives: To develop and exploit high-quality communications, navigation, and surveillance services and make them available anywhere on the surface of the Earth, using satellite and data-link technologies when they are cost effective. Communications.--The Committee agrees with the House's reduction in the communications line item to $6,000,000. The Committee believes that, under the funding provided, sufficient funding is available for the FAA to go forward on the aeronautical data link communications and aeronautical data link applications on the airport surface. Navigation.--The House has provided $5,427,000 above the amount requested by the administration. The Committee has provided $2,000,000 above the requested amount for the navigation line item. The Committee concurs with the House's observation that under the administration's request, important navigation initiatives such as the local area augmentation system, interface with the wide area augmentation system, architecture research, and technical standards development would be jeopardized, and, therefore, has provided funding above the amount requested for this line item. Surveillance.--The Committee has included $2,000,000 above that requested for the surveillance research effort. The Committee in the past has supported research for the terminal area surveillance system [TASS], which is to eventually provide a single replacement radar for the current mix of multiple aircraft and hazardous weather surveillance radars. Key to this effort is the development of the next generation active phased array radar, which will replace both the ASR-9 and terminal doppler weather radar. At major airports today, ASR-9 radar is used for air surveillance and TDWR is used to detect hazardous weather phenomena. An objective of the program would be to eventually replace both of these radars. An additional benefit of TASS is that FAA should be able to place the system on airport property. Currently, FAA must locate some ASR-9 systems and most TDWR systems on land that is near an airport, which has created land acquisition and environmental problems at several major airports, preventing them from receiving either the ASR-9 or TDWR system. Even in a constrained budget environment, the Committee supports the continuation of research in this area. weather Objectives: To improve the timeliness and accuracy of weather forecasting in order to enhance flight safety, increase system capacity, improve flight efficiency, reduce air traffic control [ATC] and pilot workload, improve flight planning, and increase productivity. The Committee has provided $3,589,000 above that requested by the administration, which is $3,000,00 below that provided in the House allowance for the Weather Program. Of the funds provided, the Committee directs that $400,000 be used for research on wind shears and downdrafts on the Juneau, AK, approach. airport technology Objectives: To provide new and improved standards, criteria, and guidelines to plan, design, construct, operate, and maintain the Nation's airports, heliports, and vertiports. The House has reduced funding for the airport technology request from the requested level of $6,000,000 to $5,200,000 stating that the reduction is due to budget constraints. The Committee has restored funding to last year's level of $6,000,000. aircraft safety technology Objectives: To develop technologies, standards, and maintenance regulations that maintain or improve aircraft safety in an evolving, changing, and demanding aviation environment. Propulsion and fuel systems.--The Committee has provided the same level, $3,400,000, as the fiscal year 1996 level for propulsion and fuel systems. Propulsion and fuel systems line items support engine reliability and alternative fuels research, including the engine titanium consortium which conducts research centered on finding improved methods for detecting cracks and imperfections in aircraft engines to prevent in-flight engine breakup and failures. Flight safety atmospheric hazards research.--The Committee has provided the full amount requested to continue the development of ice detector systems, the development of anti- icing materials, and to continue research on the effect of ice contamination on airplane stalls. Aging aircraft.--The Committee has provided the full amount requested for FAA's research in the aging aircraft area, $13,889,000. This research supports airborne data monitoring systems, corrosion fatigue research, the Center for Aviation Systems Reliability, and the Aging Aircraft Nondestructive Inspection Validation Center [AANC], which conduct research in these areas. The Committee is concerned that passenger enplanements are exceeding the current U.S. air carrier supply, and that carriers are relying increasingly on older-aged aircraft, which leads to increasing risk of failure, and has, therefore, provided the full amount requested in this area. The Committee commends the FAA for its consideration of a center of excellence to support continued airworthiness assurance. This center will bring together universities and a national laboratory to focus on problems in aircraft inspection, aircraft structural repair, and crashworthiness. It will provide a mechanism for industry financial support of projects mutually beneficial to the FAA and the aircraft industry. Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention research.--The Committee has provided the full amount requested. The Committee notes the tragic death of two passengers in Florida, apparently from the catastrophic failure of a titanium part in a jet engine. This incident demonstrates the continued priority of research concerning titanium, nickel, and composite materials. Aviation safety risk analysis.--The aviation system risk analysis activity is a new program which had previously been under the aging aircraft effort. This research should enhance and complement the use of FAA's existing operational safety systems, which include the aviation safety analysis system [ASAS] and the safety performance analysis system [SPAS]. Given the recent Valujet crash, the Committee believes that fundamental research is needed for complete, thorough and timely examination of FAA's existing safety analysis reporting systems, and that analysis lead to better targeting of FAA's inspection resources. This should not replace existing efforts being conducted by FAA, but should augment and further define existing activities. system security technology Objectives: To enhance the security of passengers and crews in all aspects of aircraft, airports, and related ATC facilities by developing systems that prevent or deter terrorist activities. Explosives and weapons detection.--The Committee has provided the full amount requested, $27,397,000, for the explosives and weapons detection line item. This activity is used to conduct research in trace and bulk detection of explosives and cargo screening. Given the increased terrorist threats and attacks, the Committee believes restoration of the requested funding is warranted. Airport security technology integration.--The Committee has provided $2,258,000 for airport security technology integration. This line item supports computer and simulation tools used to plan integration of security systems in airports, so they will be better able to defend efficiently against terrorist attacks. The amount provided by the Committee is $1,258,000 above the fiscal year 1996 level. Aviation security human factors.--The Committee has provided $3,549,000 for the aviation security human factors research, which is $1,000,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 1996. Research in this area is used for domestic passenger profiling, screener training systems, and explosives detection system deployment support. The Committee believes that severely reducing funding for this category as proposed by the House would delay recent progress for human systems integration in new security technologies. Aircraft hardening.--The Committee has provided $1,361,000 for the aircraft hardening activity. The Committee believes that given the recent Valujet tragedy, continued reseach on hardened cargo containers, hardening specifications on containers, and aircraft fuselages is absolutely necessary. human factors and aviation medicine Objectives: To establish ways to improve the effectiveness of human performance in the operation of the aviation system and to seek better methods for preventing human error, accidents, and incidents. Flight deck/maintenance/system integration human factors.-- The House has added $602,000 above that requested in the flight deck, human factors, and aviation medicine category. The Committee believes that the funding requested by the administration is sufficient to continue its existing work with NASA and DOD under the national plan for aviation human factors. Air traffic control/airway facilities human factors.--The Committee has provided $8,606,000 for the human factors research in air traffic control and airway facilities, which is the same as the requested amount. Aeromedical research.--The Committee has provided the aeromedical research funding $3,800,000, which is $1,300,000 above the fiscal year 1996 level. However, under this level, the Committee expects that FAA will be able to adequately maintain its capability at the Civil Aeromedical Institute for Forensic Toxicological and Accident Research, and expects there will be no diminution in protection/survival related research. environment and energy Objectives: To protect the environment, conserve energy, and keep the U.S. air transportation industry strong and competitive. Environment and energy.--The Committee has provided $3,800,000 for the environment and energy line item. Work in this area is primarly concerned with environmental assessments in the noise area, research and noise reduction technology, and research in engine emissions reduction and control. Therefore, the Committee has provided $200,000 above the House allowance for the environment and energy line item. innovative/cooperative research Objectives: To maximize the total effectiveness of research, engineering, and development by incorporating the efforts of other Government agencies, the industry, and universities. Innovative/cooperative research.--The Committee believes that funding is necessary in this area so that FAA will be able to best leverage scarce resources, and receive the best return for its investment. This is a key funding source for cooperative research and development agreements [CRDA's] and small business innovation research contracts. The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for this activity, which is $500,000 above the fiscal year 1996 level. Grants-in-Aid for Airports (Liquidation of Contract Authorization) (Airport and Airway Trust Fund) (including rescission of contract authorization) Appropriations, 1996....................................($1,500,000,000) (Rescission)........................................ -664,000,000 Budget estimate, 1997................................... (1,500,000,000) House allowance......................................... (1,500,000,000) Committee recommendation (1,500,000,000) The Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended, authorizes a program of grants to fund airport planning and development and noise compatibility planning and projects for public use airports in all States and territories. The Committee recommends $1,500,000,000 in liquidating cash for grants-in-aid for airports. This is consistent with the Committee's obligation limitation on airport grants for fiscal year 1997 and for the payment of previous years' obligations. Grants-in-Aid for Airports (Airport and Airway Trust Fund) (Limitation on Obligations) Appropriations, 1996....................................($1,450,000,000) Budget estimate, 1997................................... (1,350,000,000) House allowance......................................... (1,300,000,000) Committee recommendation (1,460,000,000) The bill also includes a limitation on obligations for airport development and planning grants which are financed under contract authority. The limitation recommended for fiscal year 1997 is $1,460,000,000. This is $160,000,000 above the House allowance and $110,000,000 above the budget request. The recommended amount is intended to be sufficient to continue the important tasks of enhancing airport safety, ensuring that airport standards can be met, maintaining existing airport capacity, and developing additional capacity. The Committee notes that a sizable alternative source of funding is now available to airports in the form of passenger facility charges [PFC's]. The first PFC charge began for airlines tickets issued on June 1, 1992. DOT data shows that as of April 30, 1996, 248 airports have been approved for collection of PFC's in the amount of $12,936,932,256. During calendar year 1995, airports collected $1,046,234,802 in PFC charges and $1,010,000,000 is estimated to be collected in calendar year 1996. Of the airports collecting PFC's, over 20 percent collected about 85 percent of the total, and all of these are either large or medium hub airports. DOT estimates that airports will collect $934,000,000 in calendar year 1997, depending on the number of applications received and approved. While large hubs collected most of the PFC funds during the last 2 years, small airports benefited significantly from these collections because of the redistribution mechanism in the PFC legislation. According to the provision, an airport collecting PFC's must have its apportionment under the AIP grant program reduced by 50 percent of the forecast PFC revenue, but the reduction cannot be more than one-half of the airport's earned apportionment for that fiscal year. FAA then redistributes these returned trust funds primarily to small airports. For example, in fiscal 1996 $116,000,000 that would have been distributed as grants based on passenger enplanements to PFC- charging airports is being redistributed to small airports. In 1997, FAA expects this redistributed amount to increase to about $123,000,000 under an obligation ceiling of $1,350,000,000. In redistributing these funds, FAA provides three-quarters of the total to the small airport fund, another 12.5 percent is available to small hubs, and the remaining 12.5 percent goes to FAA's discretionary account that can be provided to small, medium, or large airports. Therefore, even though the Committee's recommendation is $50,000,000 below last year's level, small airports should not be affected because they will have access in 1997 to this additional amount. And, as noted above, many other airports are supplementing their grant funds with PFC's. AIP FUNDING FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Committee Budget estimate House allowance recommendation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appropriation limitation.................................. $1,350,000,000 $1,300,000,000 $1,460,000,000 Entitlements: Primary airports...................................... 373,235,433 353,641,246 416,027,122 Cargo airports (3.5 percent).......................... 31,917,154 29,121,503 38,475,300 Alaska supplemental................................... 10,528,980 10,528,980 10,528,980 States (12 percent)................................... 142,486,919 134,701,143 159,813,727 Carryover entitlements................................ 100,000,000 100,000,000 100,000,000 ----------------------------------------------------- Subtotal entitlements............................... 658,168,486 627,992,872 724,645,129 ===================================================== Discretionary set-asides: Noise (12.5 percent).................................. 148,423,874 140,313,690 168,264,298 Reliever airports (5 percent)......................... 59,369,550 56,125,476 66,505,719 Commercial service (1.5 percent)...................... 17,810,865 16,837,643 19,951,716 System planning (0.75 percent)........................ 8,905,432 8,418,821 9,975,858 Military airport program (2.5 percent)................ 29,684,775 28,062,738 33,262,860 ----------------------------------------------------- Subtotal discretionary set-asides................... 264,194,496 249,758,368 295,950,451 ===================================================== Returned entitlements: Small airport/hub fund............. 102,637,018 97,248,760 114,404,420 Other discretionary: Capacity/safety/security/noise........................ 243,750,000 243,750,000 243,750,000 Remaining discretionary............................... 81,250,000 81,250,000 81,250,000 ----------------------------------------------------- Subtotal other discretionary........................ 325,000,000 325,000,000 325,000,000 ===================================================== Total entitlement................................... 658,168,486 627,992,872 724,645,129 Total discretionary................................. 691,831,514 672,007,128 735,354,871 ----------------------------------------------------- Grand total......................................... 1,350,000,000 1,300,000,000 1,460,000,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: Based on preliminary enplanement data for calendar year 1995. LETTERS OF INTENT Congress authorized FAA to use letters of intent [LOI's] to fund multiyear airport improvement projects that will significantly enhance systemwide airport capacity. FAA is also to consider a project's benefits and costs in determining whether to approve it for AIP funding. FAA adopted a policy of committing to LOI's no more than about 50 percent of forecasted AIP discretionary funds allocated for capacity, safety, security, and noise projects. The Committee viewed this policy as reasonable because it gave FAA the flexibility to fund other worthy projects that do not fall under a LOI. Both FAA and airport authorities have found letters of intent helpful in planning and funding airport development. The Committee appreciates the complexity of assessing a project's impact on systemwide capacity but believes that FAA should do its best in this regard before committing future AIP funds under a LOI. Further, with reduced discretionary funding in fiscal year 1997, FAA will have difficulty both meeting LOI commitments and funding other needed projects. This is due, in part, to FAA planning LOI funding commitments on the basis of a higher level of discretionary funds. The Committee in the past was concerned that FAA had not exercised sufficient control over the use of LOI's. This means that some commitments could be in jeopardy if AIP funding levels are significantly reduced. Accordingly, to maintain program integrity and ensure LOI commitments are met, the Committee repeats its recommendation that FAA be granted the authority to award new LOI's only after (1) scheduled LOI payments fall to less than 50 percent of AIP discretionary funds and (2) FAA has improved its ability to estimate airport development projects' impact on systemwide capacity. The letters of intent program assumes the following fiscal year 1997 grant allocations: California: Sacramento Metropolitan..................... $4,780,000 Colorado: Denver International.......................... 29,911,000 Florida: Daytona Beach Regional......................... 1,700,000 Georgia: Savannah International......................... 2,000,000 Illinois: Scott AFB (reliever).......................... 14,000,000 Indiana: Indianapolis International..................... 13,573,000 Kentucky: Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky........................ 12,700,000 Standiford Field, Louisville........................ 16,100,000 Louisiana: New Orleans International.................... 11,800,000 Michigan: Detroit Metropolitan.......................... 14,061,000 Mississippi: Golden Triangle Regional................... 400,000 Nevada: Reno Cannon International....................... 6,500,000 New York: Greater Buffalo International................. 8,097,000 Rhode Island: Theodore F. Green State................... 6,500,000 South Carolina: Hilton Head......................................... 532,000 Florence regional................................... 400,000 Tennessee: Nashville International............................. 2,180,000 Memphis International............................... 13,770,000 Texas: Austin (new)........................................ 11,430,000 Dallas/Fort Worth International..................... 12,500,000 Midland............................................. 1,326,732 Virginia: Washington Dulles International..................... 4,463,000 Washington National................................. 9,384,000 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Total............................................. 198,107,732 Two sources exist to fund FAA's commitment to an airport's LOI. One is the discretionary portion of FAA's airport improvement program appropriation, and the other is the entitlement funding that an airport receives through the AIP on the basis of its passenger enplanements. Even though FAA expects an airport receiving an LOI to put all of its entitlement funding toward the project being funded by the LOI, this source provides only about one-quarter of the annual LOI funding. Thus, of the $198,107,732 that FAA has committed to LOI's during fiscal year 1997, the Committee estimates that approximately $152,061,000 will need to come from the AIP's discretionary limitation. As shown in the preceding AIP funding chart under both the House and Senate levels would provide sufficient discretionary funding to cover LOI's; however, little flexibility is left to fund other high-priority capacity projects not included under an LOI. Applications are pending for capacity enhancement projects which would, if constructed, significantly reduce congestion and delay. These projects require multiyear funding commitments. The Committee recommends that the FAA enter into letters of intent for multiyear funding of such capacity enhancement projects. While letters of intent would be subject to future appropriations, they represent an important component of the Airport Improvement Program. The Committee understands that an application for a letter of intent is pending for construction of a new dependent runway for Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Subject to the completion of the required environmental review, the Committee supports the expeditious consideration of SEA-TAC's application for the letter of intent with the project sponsor for construction of the runway project. Aircraft Purchase Loan Guarantee Program (limitation on borrowing authority) Appropriations, 1996.................................... ($1,600,000) Budget estimate, 1997................................................... House allowance......................................................... Committee recommendation ........................... The Aircraft Purchase Loan Guarantee Program was established pursuant to Public Law 85-307, as amended, which gave the Secretary of Transportation the authority to provide Government guarantees of private loans to certain air carriers for the purchase of modern aircraft and equipment when financing was not otherwise available on reasonable terms. The authority to provide new guarantees expired on October 23, 1983. This program is continuing only for the purpose of making payments to private lenders upon default of existing loans by air carriers. No new loan guarantees are expected. The Committee has included bill language, as requested, that places a zero obligation limitation on borrowings. Administrative Services Franchise Fund The Committee has included bill language requested by the Federal Aviation Administration which allows the agency to establish an administrative services franchise fund. Such a fund performs centralized services such as accounting, training, payroll, travel, duplicating, multimedia, and other services. In addition to providing such services to the FAA, it may contract with other agencies, both within and outside the Department of Transportation. Such centralized services will be performed at rates to cover all expenses of operation, including employee benefits and the depreciation of the administrative services franchise fund's plant and equipment and the amortization of capital equipment such as software and hardware. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION Summary of Fiscal Year 1997 Program The principal missions of the Federal Highway Administration are: administration, in cooperation with the States, of the Federal-aid Highway Construction Program, including the interstate, primary, bridge, secondary, and urban programs; regulation and enforcement of Federal requirements relating to the safety of operation and equipment of commercial motor carriers engaged in interstate or foreign commerce; and governing the safety in movement over the Nation's highways of dangerous cargoes such as explosives, flammables, and other hazardous material. Under the Committee recommendation, a total program level of $20,042,000,000 would be provided for the activities of the Federal Highway Administration for fiscal year 1997. The following table summarizes the fiscal year 1996 program levels, the fiscal year 1997 budget estimates, the House allowance, and the Committee's recommendations: [In thousands of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year Fiscal year Program 1996 program 1997 budget House Committee level estimate allowance recommendations ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Limitation on general operating expenses....... (509,660) (652,905) (510,981) (534,846) Highway-related safety grants \2\.............. 11,000 .............. .............. ............... (Rescission of contract author- ity)...... (-9,000) .............. .............. ............... (Liquidation of contract author- ity)..... (11,000) (2,049) (2,049) (2,049) Federal-aid highways \3\....................... 17,550,000 17,714,000 17,550,000 17,650,000 Exempt Federal-aid obligations................. 2,331,507 1,314,802 2,055,000 2,055,000 Supplemental emergency relief \4\.......... 267,000 .............. .............. ............... (Liquidation of contract author- ity)..... (19,200,000) (19,800,000) (19,800,000) (19,800,000) State infrastructure banks..................... .............. 250,000 .............. 250,000 Alameda corridor--direct loan.................. .............. 58,680 .............. ............... Motor carrier safety grants \2\................ 77,225 85,000 77,425 79,000 (Rescission of contract authority balances) (-33,000) .............. .............. ............... (Liquidation of contract author- ity)..... (68,000) (74,000) (74,000) (74,000) Right-of-way revolving fund.................... .............. .............. .............. 8,000 Motor carrier safety \5\....................... (46,000) (49,500) (49,127) (48,900) ---------------------------------------------------------------- Total.................................... 20,236,732 19,422,482 19,682,425 20,042,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Includes reductions pursuant to sections 327, 335, and 349 of Public Law 104-50 and section 31002 of Public Law 104-134. \2\ Obligation limitation on contract authority. \3\ Obligation limitation on contract authority. Also includes estimated additional obligation limitation pursuant to section 1002(f)(1) of Public Law 102-240. \4\ Additional $33,000,000 will be available upon request by the President. \5\ Included within limitation on general operating expenses. Limitation on General Operating Expenses Appropriations, 1996.................................... $509,660,000 Budget estimate, 1997................................... 652,905,000 House allowance......................................... 510,981,000 Committee recommendation 534,846,000 The limitation on general operating expenses controls spending for virtually all the salaries, expenses, and research and development programs of the Federal Highway Administration. The Committee recommends that a limitation of $534,846,000 be provided for salaries and expenses of the Federal Highway Administration. The following table reflects the Committee's recommendation, the House allowance, and that requested by the administration. [In thousands of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fiscal year Program 1997 budget House Committee estimate allowance recommendation ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Administrative expenses..... 253,360 250,156 251,106 Procurement savings..... -3,000 -3,000 .............. Motor carrier safety........ 49,500 49,127 48,900 Contract programs: Highway research, development, and technology............. 81,638 65,725 69,510 Intelligent vehicle/ highway systems research............... 223,760 115,000 131,150 Technology assessment and deployment......... 14,846 13,499 13,999 National Highway Institute.............. 6,000 4,327 5,000 Local Technical Assistance Program..... 4,100 2,866 4,100 International transportation......... 500 475 475 Technical assistance-- Russia................. 400 ............ 200 Minority business....... 10,000 9,506 9,506 Transportation investment analysis.... 1,906 ............ 500 Cost allocation study (truck size and weight) 1,695 300 400 International scanning activities............. 800 ............ .............. South African Program... 400 ............ .............. Federal lands contamination site cleanup................ 2,500 2,500 2,500 Rehabilitation TFHRC.... 500 500 500 National advanced driver simulator.............. 4,000 ............ .............. Accountwide adjustment...... ............ ............ -3,000 ------------------------------------------- Total limitation...... 652,905 510,981 534,846 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Administrative Expenses Management and coordination costs.--The Committee appreciates the thorough accounting of the administrative expenses associated with FHWA's research and technology program, including management and coordination costs and expects to receive a similar accounting in future budget justifications. The Committee believes that every effort must be taken to maximize the amount of funds available for the contract research and technology program. Consequently, the Committee is setting a limit of $11,000,000 on M&C expenses. The Committee is concerned about the practice of using appropriated funds for a summer jobs program for youth who might be interested in careers in highway research and technology. The Committee favors the hiring of qualified personnel to assist in research and other FHWA responsibilities. Budget submission.--The Committee appreciates the increased detail that was presented in the fiscal year 1997 GOE budget justification. The submittal by the JPO, which clearly displayed comparable fiscal year 1996 ITS allocations and activities funded with ISTEA contract funds, was especially useful. The JPO's comprehensive responses to the Committee's questions were also helpful. The ITS budget justification and the JPO's information sharing and assistance to the Committee should serve as a model for the entire GOE ``Research and technology'' account. The Committee appreciates the fact that FHWA provided the Research and Technology Coordinating Committee [RTCC] the opportunity to comment broadly on the development of the FHWA fiscal year 1997 budget submittal. Increased consultation with the RTCC in planning the fiscal year 1998 and later budgets would benefit FHWA. The Committee also greatly appreciates receiving the advice and guidance of the RTCC. Because of budgetary limitations, the Committee's allowance includes the House's recommended reduction of $2,254,000 for additional civil rights activities. Training.--FHWA regional and field staff must upgrade and expand their expertise of ITS technologies that have been advanced during the last 5 years. Increased knowledge of the institutional experience that has been acquired also will facilitate technology transfer. The Committee maintains that a sufficient number of FHWA field and regional staff will need to be trained to ensure that quality assistance is provided to States and MPO's that are planning future ITS projects and deploying current projects. To this end, the Committee expects that a high priority for the use of training funds provided under FHWA's administrative expenses is allocated toward the retraining of FHWA staff in the ITS area. FHWA should be prepared to document these expenses by next year. In addition, the Committee expects FHWA to make substantial progress in implementing its professional building capacity program for its public sector partners as well as FTA regional staff. Achievement of the objectives of this strategic plan will facilitate more efficient use of limited transportation funds and implementation of ISTEA goals. Motor Carrier Safety Operations The Committee recommends $48,900,000 for motor carrier safety operations, not including the funding of $7,774,000 for research which is included in the research, development, and technology line. The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget request for this appropriation: Outreach and educational initiatives.......................... -$400,000 Supplemental funds for NAFTA implementation................... -400,000 Exemption and waiver monitoring............................... +400,000 Reduce various administrative expenses........................ -400,000 Address CDL problems.......................................... +200,000 Outreach and educational initiatives.--A diverse array of technical assistance and information resources is available from many private sector vendors; and the Committee is concerned that additional amounts of Federal funds may become duplicative of these activities. The Committee fully supports outreach to the more than 4,600 law enforcement personnel concerned with motor carrier safety. A portion of the funds requested was to be allocated to ensure that industry is aware of the changes emanating from the zero-base review project. Given the status of this project and the fact that few, if any, final substantive regulatory changes from this review are likely during fiscal year 1997, the Committee recommends a reduction in funds for outreach focus groups and other educational materials. NAFTA activities.--The Committee recommends $150,000 for NAFTA activities. In the past, funds to participate in NAFTA activities have not been specified in the budget justification, but have been obtained from within the base program. There has already occurred a substantial amount of planning and negotiations; countless meetings with Canada and Mexico; numerous training sessions; and the distribution of thousands of information documents on United States safety regulations to foreign operators. Several million dollars in MCSAP funds have been provided during the last several years for these activities; and the Committee believes that the $150,000 requested is more than sufficient to demonstrate U.S. commitment to international border safety. Computer equipment.--The Committee objects to the House recommendation for a decrease in funds for computer equipment for the OMC. New computer technology facilitates improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of OMC safety investigators. The Committee notes that there are about 48,000 commercial motor carriers with an unsatisfactory or conditional safety rating that OMC would like to reaudit. Improved computer equipment will increase the number of carriers contacted by OMC safety specialists. Exemption and waiver monitoring.--Sections 343, 344, and 345 of the National Highway Designation Act of 1995 impose new safety monitoring analysis, and enforcement responsibilities on the Office of Motor Carriers. For example, the exemption programs established by the NHS Designation Act will likely necessitate that OMC reviews at a minimum the safety control plans of hundreds of carriers. In order for OMC to conduct its responsibilities and report back to Congress on the costs and benefits of some of these exemptions, the safety performance of thousands of drivers will need to be monitored, and additional audits of insurance records will be critical to check the validity of safety data submitted by exemption holders. The OMC already faces a large backlog of at-risk or problem carriers that require visits from OMC safety specialists. In view of the additional responsibilities authorized under the act, the Committee recommends $400,000 to help OMC effectively implement its responsibility of ensuring that exemptions do not degrade public safety. Commercial drivers license issues.--For several years, the Committee has expressed its concerns about an array of problems and challenges associated with the Commercial Drivers License Program. In a report prepared for the Committee, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators [AAMVA] and the FHWA agreed that the problems identified were real and needed to be addressed. The Committee notes some of the deficiencies warranting improvement: development and implementation of timely electronic transmission of timely driver convictions from Canada and Mexico; elimination of a CDL holder's ability to possess a non-CDL; development of required uniform CDL restriction codes; definition of ``designed to transport'' as the current design of the CMV; development of required verification of social security numbers for CDL issue; and reevaluation of the definition of ``serious traffic violation''. In addition to these challenges, the Committee is aware of many other opportunities to improve the CDL program, namely improved judicial and prosecutorial training and outreach and improved traffic records. In order to facilitate progress in addressing the various challenges associated with improving the CDL program, the Committee recommends $200,000 to work with the States, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, and other concerned groups. Safety rating process.--At this time, the Committee objects to the House proposal to create a new pilot program for the reasons specified below. --MCSA of 1990 requirements.--The proposal, if implemented, could be in violation of certain provisions of the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1990, which requires the Secretary to take an enforcement whenever certain serious safety violations can be documented. The House language could force OMC to violate the MCSA of 1990, by delaying enforcement actions on a carrier with serious safety violations and knowingly allow such carriers to continue to operate without an appropriate and timely enforcement action and thus risk the public safety. --CVIS already provides opportunities for improvement before penalties.--The Commercial Vehicle Information System [CVIS] Program already provides carriers with opportunity to improve safety performance prior to imposing progressively stringent penalties. For example, the safety performance of carriers that receive warning letters are given 6 months to improve their performance before recalculating their Safestat score. Likewise, at-risk carriers (those with the worst safety records) are scheduled immediately for a compliance review and lacking any imminent hazard situation are also given 6 months to improve their performance before applying CVIS penalties. During the 6-month monitoring period the carrier is provided every opportunity (including hiring a safety consultant) to improve safety performance and remove themselves from the CVIS monitoring program. --Need for immediate enforcement action.--Use of a third party safety service should not interfere with or delay the use of out-of-service orders, or other enforcement action in cases where the carrier has demonstrated serious safety violations or whose operations have been found to present an imminent hazard to the public safety. Thus, the proposal could be inconsistent with an ongoing compliance strategy and not consistent with the civil penalty criteria specified in the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984. --Voluntary system already exists.--The current enforcement system does not prevent carriers from voluntarily hiring safety consultants and, in fact, a large number of carriers already employ their safety consultants on a regular basis. --Carriers already have the ability to proactively address safety issues before enforcement action is taken.-- Carriers are able to obtain copies of their carrier profile from OMC. Carriers can avoid ever being identified by Safestat by regularly requesting and reviewing their carrier safety profiles. In this way, company safety managers can proactively address and correct driver, vehicle, and safety management problems within their operations before they become serious. If fact, most safe trucking companies already have incorporated this technique into their safety programs. --OMC certification.--At this time, the concept of requiring OMC to certify safety service companies would require FHWA to develop, validate, and manage a separate certification program. The proposed certification program would impose additional job responsibilities on OMC staff already stretched thin and make them even less able to perform the basic and more important jobs of promoting safety compliance and enforcing the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. Administrative savings.--The Committee recommends a reduction of $600,000 in travel (unrelated to compliance reviews), printing, and other administrative expenses. highway research, development, and technology The Committee recommends a total of $69,510,000 to be distributed as follows: [In thousands of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Budget Activity/program element Program estimate, House Committee level, 1996 1997 allowance recommendation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Highway research and development: Safety............................................... 8,335 8,768 8,768 8,768 Pavements............................................ 8,791 23,200 19,000 20,000 Structures........................................... 12,558 22,000 13,558 15,558 Environment.......................................... 5,317 5,593 5,717 5,717 Right-of-way......................................... 408 322 322 322 Policy............................................... 5,401 5,681 5,401 5,401 Planning............................................. 5,769 8,300 5,969 5,969 Motor carrier........................................ 7,390 7,774 7,390 7,774 ------------------------------------------------------ Total, highway research and development............ 53,969 81,638 65,725 69,510 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Within the funds recommended, the Committee has provided $100,000 to be used by a major national organization dedicated to grade crossing safety to identify and assess those strategies, activities, and model programs that most effectively help communities and States improve grade crossing safety. Pavements.--The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for pavements research and development. Within the Committee's allowance is $10,000,000 which was requested for the long-term pavement performance [LTPP] program, including funds for data analysis. The LTPP is developing testing and design procedures and information and computer software that can be used by the States to build better pavements and maintain them longer. This program will address key deficiencies in the ability of highway engineers to rehabilitate pavements and create and maintain new pavements that perform well under modern traffic conditions. The Committee agrees with both the House and FHWA that support for the LTPP should be the highest priority in the pavements R&D program. The LTPP will result in substantial benefits to the States. Tremendous cost savings will be realized as a result of the new pavement mixtures, information, and test procedures resulting from this program. Within the funds provided, the Committee recommends $2,515,000 for exploratory research, a new initiative that reflects the recommendations of the National Science and Technology Council and is consistent with the general recommendations of the Transportation Research Board. The Committee is convinced that a greater research effort should be undertaken to develop appropriate uses for waste materials in highway construction. The potential benefits from such increased uses are significant. The economy benefits from converting materials now considered waste into productive resources, and the environment benefits by diverting significant volumes from existing landfills. At the same time, the integrity of our transportation infrastructure requires that proposed uses should be based on careful research to avoid future environmental or physical performance risks. Therefore, the Committee recommends $2,000,000 for development of a systemic approach to expanded waste utilization using accelerated aging tests to ensure long-term physical and environmental performance of applications using such materials. With those issues properly resolved, it should be possible to identify specific secondary materials and specific applications in which significant volumes of waste can be properly used while ensuring long-term effectiveness, and without increasing overall construction costs. Structures.--The Committee recommends $15,558,000 for structures research and development, which represents an increase of $3,000,000 over the fiscal year 1996 level. An increase is justified to advance work in several areas, including bridge management disciplines, high performance materials, and nondestructive evaluation. These funds will help accelerate work on the advancement of cost-effective, longer- lasting steel and concrete structures. Advanced technologies will help reduce total fabricated costs and meet required strength, toughness, weldability, and other specified design property requirements. Within the funds recommended, FHWA shall allocate $2,000,000 for exploratory research, which is the amount requested in the budget. As the Nation undertakes to rehabilitate its domestic infrastructure, it is becoming increasingly apparent that for reasons of both environmental protection and longevity, traditional construction methods and materials are not cost effective when compared to new designs and composite materials. In an effort to demonstrate the feasibility of advanced composite designs for infrastructure application in a marine environment, the Committee directs that $1,000,000 be available for the development and installation of composite pilings. It is expected that these composite pilings will last significantly longer than traditional materials, without the threat to the marine environment associated with many of those traditional materials. The Committee objects to the language in the House report concerning calcium magnesium acetate [CMA]. FHWA has already conducted a significant amount of research and development related to CMA. Previous research has resulted in the following studies: environmental evaluation of calcium magnesium acetate; process development for the production of calcium magnesium acetate [CMA]; effect of calcium magnesium acetate on pavements and motor vehicles; corrosion of highway and bridge structural metals by CMA; field evaluation of calcium magnesium acetate during the winter of 1986-87; and highway deicing, comparing salt and calcium magnesium acetate. The Committee, as well as the Federal Highway Administration, believes that further development, testing evaluation, or marketing of this material should be the responsibility of the private sector. Environment.--Because of budgetary limitations, the Committee is recommending the same level of funding provided in fiscal year 1996. The Committee directs the Department of Transportation to initiate a research program to support a comprehensive noise prediction model applicable to highway traffic, aircraft, and railroad noise. The Committee further directs that a grant of $250,000 be made available to the National Center for Physical Acoustics to identify scientific issues which impede accurate noise prediction; to begin research into propagation phenomena which are not fully understood; and to assist the Department in the preparation of a plan to develop an accurate multimodal noise prediction model. The Department should provide this plan to the Committee by January 1, 1997. The Committee further notes its concern about commercial trucking on Federal facilities and the study of environmental effects of alternative routes, and directs that FHWA apply $400,000 to study the environmental impact of alternative commercial trucking routes to national sites, such as the Hoover Dam/Boulder Bridge. Right-of-way.--The Committee is recommending the amount requested. Policy research.--The Committee recommends $5,401,000, the same amount provided last year. Funds for transportation investment analysis should be included in the future as part of the policy research budget. Planning.--The Committee recommends $5,969,000 for planning research and directs that at least $2,000,000 of the section 6005 funds be used to develop the TRANSIMS, which is an advanced travel forecasting project. TRANSIMS will assist States and metropolitan planning organizations in meeting the analytical requirements of the ISTEA and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, and in analyzing the travel impacts of new technologies resulting from the National Intelligent Transportation Systems Program. The FHWA is encouraged to reduce the costs of TRANSIMS through carefully controlling costs and seeking opportunities for cost sharing with other agencies, including the Federal Transit Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency. Motor carrier research.--The Committee recommends $7,774,000 for motor carrier research, which is the amount requested. Within the funds provided, no more than $1,000,000 will be used for services and partnerships. The Committee has carefully reviewed the research findings of the new analysis unit of the Office of Motor Carriers and fully expects that the entire $2,200,000 requested to support information analysis will be allocated during fiscal year 1997. The Committee is concerned that the release of the results of the phase I fatigue research has taken so long and expects the FHWA Administrator to ensure that other components of the FHWA-sponsored fatigued research are completed within a more timely manner. This research will be critical for the planned rulemaking to revise the hours of service regulations. The Committee is displeased that the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking on hours of service was not issued within the timeframe required in the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act. The Committee is also displeased that a draft of the OMC 5-year strategic research plan was not made available as requested. Ongoing research indicates a need to provide a better scientific and empirical basis for the out-of-service criteria and to ensure that the inspection process is more closely tied to effective crash reduction measures. Such research and associated risk assessment would strengthen the MCSAP inspection process, improve the safety regulations, and more closely couple the inspection process to measures successful in crash reduction. Consequently, the Committee directs that $500,000 of the funds provided will be used to begin the process of accomplishing these objectives. intelligent transportation systems The administration's request of $223,760,000 for intelligent transportation systems [ITS] included $42,935,000 for research and $28,125,000 for operational testing. The Committee directs that funding be provided only up to the level specified for the projects listed below, with funding for other operational testing projects to be distributed at the discretion of the Secretary. The Committee recommends a total of $131,150,000 to be distributed as follows: [In thousands of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Program level, Budget House Committee 1996 estimate, 1997 allowance recommendation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Intelligent vehicle highway systems: Research and development \1\................ 49,916 42,935 27,000 32,000 Operational tests........................... 31,052 28,125 53,000 55,900 Automated highway system.................... 14,000 30,700 20,000 27,000 Architecture and standards.................. .............. 7,050 5,000 6,000 Evaluation.................................. .............. 4,000 2,000 2,000 Mainstreaming............................... .............. 950 .............. 250 Model deployment............................ .............. 100,000 .............. .............. Program and systems support................. 10,034 10,000 8,000 8,000 --------------------------------------------------------------- Total, ITS................................ 105,002 223,760 115,000 131,150 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Includes commercial vehicle operations. Research and development.--The Committee recommends a total of $32,000,000 for ITS research and development, which is $10,935,000 less than the amount requested. For the commercial vehicle operations [CVO] research and development, the Committee recommends $7,000,000, including the $5,100,000 requested for the SAFER/MCSAP sites. The Committee endorses the House directive that FHWA ensure that the primary focus of the entire CVO program be on safety considerations. The Committee is pleased that the initial goals for the SAFER initiative have been accomplished and appreciates FHWA's commitment to continued timely completion of this initiative. The benefits of the investment in this project are numerous. For example, inspections targeted by the inspection selection system, an integral part of the SAFER system, give a 30-percent higher out-of-service rate for drivers and a 75-percent higher out-of- service rate for vehicles, thus improving the targeting of the inspection process on high-risk drivers and vehicles. For crash avoidance research, the Committee is recommending $11,000,000, which is $4,400,000 below the administration's request. These funds together with the moneys recommended under the operational test program and ISTEA funds will allow for substantial growth in NHTSA's ITS safety program above the fiscal year 1996 level. Operational tests.--The Committee recommends $55,900,000 for operational tests to be allocated in the following manner: $10,000,000 to advance real-time adaptive traffic control technology and incident management, $3,000,000 for advanced vehicle control systems, $12,900,000 for completion of the CVISN and its prototype testing and substantial progress on the pilot projects, and $30,000,000 for the integration of Intelligent Transportation Infrastructure [ITI] technologies. Each of these projects is of national significance, is requested in the budget, and is consistent with the intent of title VI(B) of ISTEA. The Director of the JPO and the FHWA Administrator shall ensure that the CVISN activity, as well as other ITS/CVO initiatives, minimizes the use of both ISTEA and GOE funds allocated toward outreach and training activities. The CVISN is one of the key research and operational tests within the National ITS Program. The Committee complements FHWA and the Joint Program Office on the progress made in the prototype testing of the CVISN and the initial planning for its eventual deployment, starting with the pilot projects. FHWA will continue to play a significant role in the development, testing and model deployment of standards for communications among the States, clearinghouses, safety systems, and other integral components of the CVISN. This process will include the development of sound cost estimates to operate CVISN and the documentation of its costs and benefits for State regulatory and enforcement agencies, carriers, and others. The resulting information is necessary to lay the foundation for key decisionmakers to determine an appropriate course of action to implement CVISN throughout the States. The Committee directs that FHWA accelerate its work with all of the potential users of CVISN to determine how the long- term operation and financing of CVISN should proceed. The Administrator is to submit a detailed plan that lays the foundation for a smooth transition before 2001 from a federally financed to a user-financed system that will ensure the long- term operation and improvement of this system. None of the funds provided for the CVISN project will be used for evaluation purposes. Funds to conduct such activity are provided under evaluations. Within the funds recommended for CVO, the Committee is providing $500,000 to advance the concept and technology of an automated compliance review. Before April 1, 1997, the FHWA Administrator is requested to submit a letter to both the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations identifying the future direction and challenges associated with this effort, together with a spending plan on the resources needed to bring this project to completion, including an analysis of expected deployment costs and benefits. Because of budget limitations, the Committee is unable to recommend the entire amount requested for the operational testing of important crash avoidance technologies. The Committee expects that ISTEA funds will be used to support the new operational test project not funded under LGOE. While much ITS activity is concentrated on the detection of incidents and on freeway surveillance, efforts also need to be focused on coordinating multiagency responses and clearance of incidents. There are both technical and institutional opportunities to reduce traffic congestion caused by poor incident. The Committee expects that FHWA's request for $900,000 in ISTEA funding to enhance public and private sector incident management activities will be fully funded. Given the extent of traffic congestion problems that plague our roadways the Committee maintains that the ISTEA funds will not be sufficient. Consequently, within the funds provided for traffic control, the Committee directs that $500,000 be used for support of the work of the coalition, to address the institutional issues of incident management, and promote the use of technologies, expert systems and communications equipment and software to aid responding agencies. The Committee encourages FHWA to fully exploit every opportunity to advance and use new technologies to improve incident response. Automated highway systems.--The AHS Consortium, assisted by FHWA, has made significant progress in advancing the AHS Program. Because of budgetary limitations, the Committee recommends $27,000,000 to continue progress, which is $3,700,000 less than requested. The Committee agrees with the House that FHWA and the AHS Consortium members must ensure that the funds provided are spent primarily on advancing new technology and developing and selecting concepts needed for the AHS prototype. The Committee directs FHWA to reduce the amount of Federal funds allowed for the overhead costs of the AHS consortium and to take all necessary steps to minimize the costs of the 1997 demonstration project. The Committee limits expenses for outreach activities related to the AHS to $50,000. FHWA and the AHS consortium will conduct the best outreach possible by scaling down the expenses and demonstrating the success of its 1997 demonstration. Foreseeable budgetary limitations require the participants to reexamine rigorously the complexity, scope, and vehicle mix of the prototype configuration subject to validation testing; and to work toward completion of the initial cooperative agreement within the time line originally specified. The Committee strongly disagrees with the House language prohibiting the use of funds for the incorporation of commercial vehicles in the AHS. The testing of new safety technology and opportunities to improve the safety and economic productivity of the commercial motor vehicle industry are two of several benefits to be realized. Architecture and standards.--The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for architecture and standards support, which is $1,050,000 less than requested. The Committee believes it is essential to reduce expenses associated with the cooperative agreements initiated with the standards developing organizations and those entities maintaining the systems architecture. The Department's effort to expedite timely and integrated ITS standards development is of fundamental importance. Evaluations.--Because of budgetary limitations, $2,000,000 is provided for evaluations, of which no less than $300,000 will be used to analyze the costs and benefits of the CVISN prototype/pilot program. Mainstreaming.--The Committee generally agrees with the House approach to reduce funding for outreach activities, there is one area, however, that deserves consideration, namely public transit authorities. The Committee recommends $250,000 for outreach activities directed only at transit authorities. Program support.--The Committee recommends $8,000,000 for program management. The Committee agrees with the House suggestion that FHWA shall avail itself more of the expertise and advice of ITS AMERICA in the formulation of future budget requests. Such input would be consistent with title VI(B) of the ISTEA and the cooperative agreement governing this advisory committee. The Committee directs that the JPO will ensure that any organization which conducts the information clearinghouse function on behalf of the National ITS Program will make available all reports and information to the public at no charge and without the requirement to become a member of any organization. The Committee directs the Director of the Joint Program Office to reduce funds to no more than $2,000,000 for CVO State, regional, and national forums; to no more than $300,000 for mainstreaming-planning; to no more than $500,000 for ITI technical assistance; to no more than $200,000 for ITI outreach; and to no more than $100,000 for CVO outreach. The Committee does not approve any funds for the nationwide strategy for Hazmat incident response. This strategy should be developed by FHWA staff. technology assessment and deployment The Committee recommends $13,999,000 which is $1,500,000 more than the fiscal year 1996 level. The Office of Technology Applications and the Office of Highway Safety [OHS] are conducting a multifaceted and innovative safety deployment program. To further strengthen these initiatives, the Committee directs that $3,950,000 be obtained from GOE and $1,725,000 be obtained from the section 6005 funds. The Committee agrees with the House initiative to provide assistance to States and local governments in setting reasonable and enforceable speed limits. Within the funds provided, the Committee recommends $300,000 to be allocated to the OHS to further expand its outreach activities, an initiative that is stressed in its 5 year strategic plan. To this end, the Committee would like to see evidence next year of OHS using advanced information technology to expand its outreach to the motoring public, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Consistent with the provisions of section 6005 of ISTEA, the FHWA has sought to promote heated bridge technologies through two formal solicitations, an active outreach program involving contacts with bridge engineers throughout the country, and development of a promotional video. Because of the complexity of the technologies, limitations on placement, and unknown future operating costs, many highway agencies have deterred from participating in the program. Despite its vigorous efforts to work with the States, FHWA simply has been unable to fund a sufficient number of worthwhile projects to meet the ISTEA objective of installation of heated bridge technologies on a minimum of 10 bridges per fiscal year with a funding level of $4,000,000 per fiscal year. FHWA informed the Committee that a funding level of $1,000,000 for fiscal year 1996 and $1,000,000 for fiscal year 1997 would allow for the evaluation of the existing heated bridge projects and the successful completion of the program. Consequently, the Committee allows FHWA to apply the balance of the funds originally designated for heated bridge technologies and any expected unobligated balances to other technology areas within the purpose of section 6005 that are of higher priority interest to States and local jurisdictions. national highway institute The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the National Highway Institute, which is an increase of $673,000 above the fiscal year 1996 level. Primarily during the last 5 years, the Committee has supported an intensive research and technology program that has resulted in a substantial number of new advances which are now ready to be incorporated into State and local highway programs. The Committee has increased funding for the NHI to address the backlog of training courses that need to be delivered to help realize the benefits of these past investments in research and development. The Committee also expects to see evidence next year of new ITS courses developed and delivered with these moneys. local technical assistance program The Committee recommends $4,100,000 for the LTAP and objects to FHWA's request to use $500,000 of these funds for the National Rural Initiative Program, which was developed to focus Federal programs within each State to address the needs and concerns of rural communities and is not directly related to the purposes of LTAP. The funds recommended herein will serve several purposes, including enhancing the participation of the LTAP centers in the Safe Communities Program in such areas as improved data collection, traffic safety audits, improved traffic and sign inventory management and other highway safety initiatives such as those discussed in last year's report; improving the LTAP technology transfer clearinghouse, facilitating the deployment of proven SHRP technology at the local level, and addressing the gap between the state of the practice of highway technology and the state of the art. international transportation activities The Committees recommends $475,000 for the International Transportation Activities Program. The Committee encourages FHWA to redouble its efforts to find supplemental funding to help accomplish the objectives of this program. technical assistance program--russia The Committee recommends $200,000 for technical assistance for Russia and expects that a proportionate amount of these funds will be provided to other countries formerly part of the U.S.S.R. minority business The Committee concurs with the House allowance and fully funds the request of $9,506,000 for the minority business activity. transportation investment analysis The Committee has provided $500,000 for the transportation investment analysis activity, and believes that these funds can be used to help the Federal Highway Administration study new innovative financing mechanisms and to monitor the success and experiences of the new State Infrastructure Bank Program. COST ALLOCATION STUDY (TRUCK SIZE AND WEIGHT) The Committee recommends $400,000 for the cost allocation study to be allocated as follows: $300,000 to develop software, data, and procedures for use by the States in conducting their own highway cost allocation studies, and $100,000 to analyze a variety of complex alternative highway user fee structures relevant to reauthorization. FHWA was instructed last year to complete truck size and weight analyses within the funds provided in the fiscal year 1996 appropriation. Consequently, no additional funds are recommended for this purpose and the Committee prohibits the use of section 6005 funds to continue work on truck size and weight or related policy research. international scanning The Committee has received information detailing an array of benefits that have resulted from past international scanning activities. Such activities should, however, continue to be funded using ISTEA funds. south africa program The Committee has not provided the requested funding for the South Africa program. It is concerned that there could be a proliferation of these types of request for special assistance from various countries: witness special requested earmarks for Russia and South Africa. The Committee believes that FHWA is best served by working in conjunction with the State Department, which is in the business of providing assistance to foreign governments. federal lands contamination cleanup The Committee recommends $2,500,000 for the environmental cleanup at the materials laboratory site on the Denver Federal Center. FHWA has, since 1990, used funds appropriated for other purposes to deal with this situation without notifying the Committee. FHWA must be more forthcoming in the future when it uses appropriated funds for any purposes other than those originally in the budget justification and funded by the Committee. FHWA managers should note that the Committee has reduced the amount of funds recommended for the contract program in order to pay for these expenses. The Committee agrees with the House assessment of FHWA's handling of the environmental cleanup at the materials facility in Colorado. The letter to be submitted to both the House and Senate Appropriations Committee will specify the exact costs that are likely to be encountered to restore this property to a State of environmental compliance. In addition, the letter should respond to the following questions: Why weren't the Appropriations Committees informed several years ago about these environmental problems and their associated costs? How soon will FHWA fully comply with its responsibilities under Federal and State law? national advanced driver simulator [nads] The Committee has not approved funding for the NADS under operations, but recommends that $14,000,000 of ISTEA contract funds be used for this purpose. The Department has repeatedly stated that the NADS is of critical importance to advancing progress on the objectives of the National ITS Program. The Committee agrees with the House that the NADS is an innovative, high-risk analytical test project that has received limited non-Federal cost-sharing. Accountwide Adjustment The Committee concurs with the House's reduction of $3,000,000 for procurement savings; but has assessed the reduction against the whole ``Limitation on general operating expenses'' account, and not specifically against FHWA's administrative expenses. General Provisions Obligation rates.--The Committee has continued language which limits Federal-aid highways first quarter obligations and changed the amount to 12 percent of the total. General operating expenses.--The Committee has included bill language which it has in previous bills that clarifies those activities, programs, and projects that are to be included under the ``Limitation on general operating expenses'' account. Miller Highway.--The Committee has deleted the House general provision (sec. 330) which would have prohibited the use of any of the funds in this act for improvements to the Miller Highway, which is located in New York City, NY. Federal Highway Administration takedown.--The Committee has included bill language requested by the administration which increases the administrative takedown from the highway program from 3\3/4\ percent to 4\3/4\ percent. Mineola rail grade crossing project.--Over several years, the Committee had appropriated funds for this important rail/ highway grade crossing safety project. The Committee has included a general provision to permit the balance of funds remaining from previous appropriations for the Mineola, NY, railroad grade crossing project to be used for other grade crossing improvements in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, NY. Indiana highways.--The Committee has included bill language in title IV which allows the State of Indiana to use funds previously provided for a study in Whiting, IN, to be used for a congestion relief project in Merrillville, IN. other Shiloh, MT, interchange.--The Committee understands that an additional $3,000,000 may be needed for the Shiloh interchange in Billings, MT. The Committee urges the authorizing committee to determine if this additional funding is necessary to take appropriate actions in authorizing these funds. Saddle Road, Hawaii.--The Committee is pleased with the manner in which the Saddle Road project on the Island of Hawaii has progressed, and hopes that this process will continue. Saddle Road improvements will be of great benefit to the military as well as island residents. The Committee is aware of Saddle Road's hazardous conditions and the large number of accidents that occur on the road each year. The Committee believes that remedying these hazardous conditions should continue to be a priority. Highway-Related Safety Grants (Liquidation of Contract Authorization) (Highway Trust Fund) Appropriations, 1996.................................... ($11,000,000) Budget estimate, 1997................................... (2,049,000) House allowance......................................... (2,049,000) Committee recommendation (2,049,000) Section 402 of title 23, United States Code, authorizes programs to assist States and localities in implementing highway safety programs in accordance with uniform standards established by the Secretary. Most of the activities carried out under the FHWA standards involve development and implementation of systems, procedures, manuals, et cetera, to assist highway agencies in the orderly planning and implementation of safety construction and operational improvements. This program was proposed to be merged with a similar program in the NHTSA. The Committee recommends $2,049,000 for liquidation of contract authority for highway-related safety grants. These additional funds will allow the Federal Highway Administration to meet payments of prior-year unpaid obligations. Federal-Aid Highways (Liquidation of Contract Authorization) (Highway Trust Fund) Appropriations, 1996 ($19,200,000,000) Budget estimate, 1997 (19,800,000,000) House allowance (19,800,000,000) Committee recommendation (19,800,000,000) This activity comprises the majority of all federally aided programs through which the States are financially and technically aided to continue a national highway system that meets the transportation needs of the Nation in terms of capacity and safety. All programs included within the Federal-aid account are financed from the highway trust fund. Authorizations in the form of contract authority have been enacted in substantive legislation. These authorizations are apportioned and/or allocated to the States and generally remain available for obligation over a 4-year period. Liquidating cash appropriations are subsequently requested to fund outlays resulting from obligations incurred under contract authority. The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation of $19,800,000,000 for the Federal-aid highways program, which is the same as the House allowance and the administration's request. Federal-Aid Highways (Limitation on Obligations) (Highway Trust Fund) Appropriations, 1996 ($17,550,000,000) Budget estimate, 1997 (17,714,000,000) House allowance (17,550,000,000) Committee recommendation (17,650,000,000) The administration's proposal of $17,714,000,000 includes previously appropriated or authorized accounts other than emergency relief and minimum allocation. In addition to programs covered by the obligation ceiling, there are activities that are exempt from the ceiling. Under the administration's proposal, it is assumed that $1,314,802,000 is outside the limitation which brings the administration's program total to $19,029,000,000. Under the House's allowance, which includes an obligation ceiling of $17,550,000,000 it is estimated that programs exempt from the limitation would total approximately $2,055,000,000 for a total program level of $19,605,000,000. The Committee recommends an obligation ceiling of $17,650,000,000 for the regular Federal-aid formula program. In addition, the programs outside the obligation ceiling are estimated at $2,055,000,000 for a total program level of $19,705,000,000. Estimated fiscal year 1997 obligation limitation distributed at $17,650,000,000 State Current law Alabama................................................. $272,547,196 Alaska.................................................. 205,452,946 Arizona................................................. 197,839,865 Arkansas................................................ 176,614,504 California.............................................. 1,416,567,040 Colorado................................................ 200,767,393 Connecticut............................................. 356,229,948 Delaware................................................ 78,039,747 District of Columbia.................................... 79,484,906 Florida................................................. 603,168,336 Georgia................................................. 406,382,518 Hawaii.................................................. 122,599,965 Idaho................................................... 106,447,516 Illinois................................................ 665,243,369 Indiana................................................. 344,003,816 Iowa.................................................... 199,375,572 Kansas.................................................. 206,521,727 Kentucky................................................ 227,360,713 Louisiana............................................... 237,383,689 Maine................................................... 92,214,321 Maryland................................................ 267,491,518 Massachusetts........................................... 695,579,969 Michigan................................................ 470,412,809 Minnesota............................................... 254,092,683 Mississippi............................................. 184,792,636 Missouri................................................ 359,208,625 Montana................................................. 155,956,631 Nebraska................................................ 140,078,573 Nevada.................................................. 105,323,760 New Hampshire........................................... 86,166,546 New Jersey.............................................. 482,366,090 New Mexico.............................................. 170,290,773 New York................................................ 1,052,396,004 North Carolina.......................................... 402,075,905 North Dakota............................................ 102,794,085 Ohio.................................................... 598,771,278 Oklahoma................................................ 229,428,624 Oregon.................................................. 204,235,674 Pennsylvania............................................ 665,627,026 Rhode Island............................................ 86,464,974 South Carolina.......................................... 212,640,951 South Dakota............................................ 112,176,469 Tennessee............................................... 327,984,230 Texas................................................... 992,016,359 Utah.................................................... 126,583,256 Vermont................................................. 79,072,570 Virginia................................................ 343,879,367 Washington.............................................. 326,468,695 West Virginia........................................... 159,945,704 Wisconsin............................................... 294,690,116 Wyoming................................................. 112,077,259 Puerto Rico............................................. 76,665,754 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Subtotal.......................................... 16,072,000,000 Administration.......................................... 532,000,000 Federal lands........................................... 426,000,000 Reserve................................................. 620,000,000 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Total............................................. 17,650,000,000 DONOR/DONEE STATE COMPARISON There has been considerable debate regarding the donor/ donee State issue as it regards the individual States' contributions into the highway trust fund and the amount of funding each State receives under the Federal-aid highways program. Congress created section 157, the minimum allocation program to correct any inequities created between contributions versus receipts. This program, however, is not based on a dollar-in versus dollar-out calculation. The minimum allocation formula is a ratio between a State's percent share contributed to the highway trust fund and the percent share the State receives from the trust fund in a given year. Under the program no State receives less than 90 percent of its percent share of the total amount contributed to the trust fund by all States versus its percent share received from the fund for the last year for which FHWA has data. In effect, the minimum allocation makeup funds received by a State in fiscal year 1997 are based on fiscal year 1995 contributions. The minimum allocation program calculation only considers the last year for which FHWA has data, and no adjustments are made for contributions and receipts over the life of the Federal-aid highway program. This has resulted in some States receiving minimum allocation funding, which started in fiscal year 1982, even though that State has received more funding from the highway trust fund than it has contributed to the fund since the start of the Federal-aid highway program in 1956. The following table depicts the amount of funds contributed to and received from the fund since its inception. COMPARISON OF FEDERAL HIGHWAY TRUST FUND RECEIPTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE STATES AND FEDERAL-AID APPORTIONMENTS AND ALLOCATIONS FROM THE FUND--FISCAL YEARS 1957-95 \1\ [Dollars in thousands] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Payments into the fund \2\ Apportionments and allocations Ratio of apportionments and -------------------------------- from the fund \3\ allocations to payments --------------------------------------------------------------- State Fiscal year Cumulated Cumulated Cumulated 1995 since July 1, Fiscal year since July 1, Fiscal year since July 1, 1956 1995 1956 1995 1956 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alabama................................................. $453,217 $5,810,236 $357,493 $6,696,015 0.79 1.15 Alaska.................................................. 41,215 596,358 238,302 4,156,911 5.78 6.97 Arizona................................................. 360,334 4,156,271 314,005 5,184,640 .87 1.25 Arkansas................................................ 296,943 3,881,007 284,629 3,878,623 .96 1.00 California.............................................. 2,115,834 30,803,323 2,081,677 29,863,744 .98 .97 Colorado................................................ 260,695 3,825,575 238,668 5,205,668 .92 1.36 Connecticut............................................. 209,722 3,517,298 393,038 6,279,129 1.87 1.79 Delaware................................................ 59,509 884,363 81,869 1,343,968 1.38 1.52 District of Columbia.................................... 26,425 540,339 111,581 2,291,929 4.22 4.24 Florida................................................. 1,035,177 13,118,090 828,598 11,904,585 .80 .91 Georgia................................................. 783,874 9,446,014 582,602 9,041,412 .74 .96 Hawaii.................................................. 54,610 764,786 122,350 3,042,620 2.24 3.98 Idaho................................................... 111,130 1,430,270 180,973 2,584,288 1.63 1.81 Illinois................................................ 694,896 12,501,341 729,893 14,077,584 1.05 1.13 Indiana................................................. 568,030 8,086,645 443,255 7,099,723 .78 .88 Iowa.................................................... 232,938 4,085,589 252,475 4,778,747 1.08 1.17 Kansas.................................................. 228,956 3,773,793 222,449 4,235,266 .97 1.12 Kentucky................................................ 399,732 5,091,617 299,866 5,588,878 .75 1.10 Louisiana............................................... 350,283 5,442,527 299,354 7,058,618 .85 1.30 Maine................................................... 110,735 1,625,117 132,673 1,859,111 1.20 1.14 Maryland................................................ 344,634 5,209,742 453,520 7,996,887 1.32 1.53 Massachusetts........................................... 370,469 6,032,405 787,930 10,326,453 2.13 1.71 Michigan................................................ 689,984 11,050,375 636,385 10,093,973 .92 .91 Minnesota............................................... 288,655 5,296,828 347,546 6,848,994 1.20 1.29 Mississippi............................................. 269,181 3,758,837 217,920 3,843,984 .81 1.02 Missouri................................................ 531,814 7,716,796 444,719 7,507,268 .84 .97 Montana................................................. 100,678 1,443,221 192,550 3,541,698 1.91 2.45 Nebraska................................................ 160,774 2,423,719 149,417 2,861,488 .93 1.18 Nevada.................................................. 138,502 1,482,337 134,909 2,392,847 .97 1.61 New Hampshire........................................... 79,721 1,149,572 94,027 1,659,907 1.18 1.44 New Jersey.............................................. 570,497 8,735,328 584,365 9,038,201 1.02 1.03 New Mexico.............................................. 166,515 2,331,686 200,750 3,300,588 1.21 1.42 New York................................................ 904,465 14,972,854 1,097,971 18,225,346 1.21 1.22 North Carolina.......................................... 639,323 8,638,113 523,951 7,487,096 .82 .87 North Dakota............................................ 74,497 1,096,175 140,621 2,146,783 1.89 1.96 Ohio.................................................... 757,533 13,333,457 708,641 12,433,900 .94 .93 Oklahoma................................................ 348,204 5,134,760 275,192 4,476,186 .79 .87 Oregon.................................................. 270,149 3,912,879 254,296 4,730,564 .94 1.21 Pennsylvania............................................ 882,762 13,673,846 1,068,686 15,892,145 1.21 1.16 Rhode Island............................................ 55,313 963,699 116,810 2,176,359 2.11 2.26 South Carolina.......................................... 383,896 4,614,722 198,150 4,159,438 .52 .90 South Dakota............................................ 75,269 1,165,687 139,918 2,305,328 1.86 1.98 Tennessee............................................... 495,851 6,881,871 402,426 7,031,446 .81 1.02 Texas................................................... 1,583,125 22,863,465 1,293,611 19,862,498 .82 .87 Utah.................................................... 160,045 2,065,098 153,762 3,550,613 .96 1.72 Vermont................................................. 57,897 730,359 86,531 1,638,362 1.49 2.24 Virginia................................................ 571,718 7,549,919 420,158 8,896,048 .73 1.18 Washington.............................................. 375,358 5,407,531 291,589 8,736,024 .78 1.62 West Virginia........................................... 162,736 2,431,962 243,195 5,007,164 1.49 2.06 Wisconsin............................................... 422,061 5,990,472 376,713 5,364,708 .89 .90 Wyoming................................................. 93,484 1,226,320 139,494 2,445,928 1.49 1.99 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total............................................. 20,419,365 298,664,594 20,371,503 342,149,683 1.00 1.15 American Samoa.......................................... .............. .............. 4,256 45,014 .............. .............. Guam.................................................... .............. .............. 14,368 120,318 .............. .............. Northern Marianas....................................... .............. .............. 4,236 29,180 .............. .............. Puerto Rico............................................. .............. .............. 87,799 1,325,611 .............. .............. Virgin Islands.......................................... .............. .............. 18,728 124,046 .............. .............. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Grand total....................................... 20,419,365 298,664,594 20,500,890 343,793,852 1.00 1.15 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Payments into the fund include only the net tax receipts deposited in the highway account of the Federal highway trust fund. Excluded are motor fuel taxes transferred to the ``Mass transit'' account of the highway trust fund (1 cent per gallon from April 1, 1983, through November 30, 1990, 1.5 cents per gallon thereafter); the 0.1 cent per gallon tax dedicated to the leaking underground storage tank trust fund beginning January 1, 1987; the tax designated for deficit reduction (2.5 cents per gallon from December 1, 1990, through September 30, 1993, 6.8 cents thereafter); and the tax from motorboat use of gasoline transferred to the aquatic resources trust fund and the land and water conservation fund. Apportionments include fiscal year 1996 interstate construction funds apportioned during fiscal year 1995. \2\ Total Federal highway trust fund receipts are reported by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Payments into the highway trust fund attributable to highway users in each State are estimated by the Federal Highway Administration. Includes revenues from highway-user taxes only. Payments into the fund are overstated by $1,590,000,000 due to a fiscal year 1994 error by the Treasury Department in reconciling estimated deposits to the actual tax revenue. The $1,590,000,000 was credited to the fund in fiscal year 1995. \3\ Includes all funds apportioned or allocated from the highway trust fund except for the following programs: Indian reservation roads, highway safety information, and local transportation assistance. These programs are either administered by other Federal agencies or are treated as administrative funds and cannot be easily attributed to individual States. Obligations are used to represent allocations for alcohol safety incentive grants and the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. Interstate Substitute Highways This program, part of the Federal-aid highways activity, provides funding of highways substituted for Interstate System segments withdrawn from the system under 23 U.S.C. 103(e)(4). After the joint request by a State Governor and the local governments concerned, the Secretary withdrew (from the Interstate System) interstate highway segments which would have passed through or connect urbanized areas within the State determined not to be essential to a unified Interstate System. The value of a withdrawn segment, adjusted for inflation, establishes an authorization against which Congress may provide funds. Under existing law, all of the contract authority provided for highway projects substituted for withdrawn interstate highway segments has been distributed. As shown in the following table, there remains $33,314,575 needed to fully fund the substitute highway projects. However, no additional contract authority has been provided under existing law to distribute to these withdrawal areas. ESTIMATED FEDERAL FUNDS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE SUBSTITUTE HIGHWAY PROJECTS AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Estimated additional funds required State Withdrawal area to complete substitute highway projects \1\ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Arizona........................... Tucson.............. $11,889 California........................ San Francisco....... 1,204,533 Connecticut....................... Bolton to Killingly. 10,042,918 Hartford-New Britain 321,448 Washington, DC.................... Washington.......... 78,607 Georgia........................... Atlanta............. 638,986 Maryland.......................... Baltimore........... 1,562,592 Bowie-Millersvllle.. 415,757 Washington.......... 47,050 Massachusetts..................... Boston.............. 1,779 Fall River to 77,459 Providence. New Jersey........................ New York City....... 234,755 New York City- 1,388,601 Trenton. New York.......................... New York City....... 11,875,419 Rhode Island...................... Rhode Island........ 4,003,336 Tennessee......................... Memphis............. 1,409,446 --------------- Totals...................... .................... 33,314,575 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\ Amounts are in Federal funds and assume full obligation of the fiscal year 1996 apportionments and prior-year discretionary allocations and formula apportionments. bridge discretionary funds In the past, the Committee has directed the Secretary of Transportation to give priority designation, consistent with existing criteria, to several bridges that have extremely low rating factors and which serve as major links for both intrastate and interstate commerce and which directly impact the economic development of an area. The ISTEA legislation distributes all but $60,500,000 of the total $2,763,000,000 available by statutory formula. The Committee directs FHWA to give priority consideration to the Missisquoi Bay Bridge, VT; the Wickliffe-Cairo Bridge, Ballard County, KY; and the Shadle Bridge, Mason County, WV, consistent with existing criteria. discretionary interstate 4-r The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Public Law 102-240, authorized the interstate resurfacing, restoring, or rehabilitation of routes at a total program level of $2,914,000,000 for fiscal year 1997. The ISTEA legislation distributes mostly all of these funds by statutory formula. However, $65,000,000 of National Highway System funds are set aside for 4-R work. The Committee directs FHWA to continue the effort on Interstate 5, OR, and give priority consideration to the interchange connection of Interstates 15, 515, and 95 in Las Vegas, NV, and Interstate 15 in Salt Lake City, UT. federal lands highway programs Consistent with section 1032 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 that provides funds for projects that promote tourism and recreational travel. The Committee directs that priority consideration be given the following projects: an interchange on the Natchez Trace Parkway near Clinton, MS; upgrading of the Pahrump Highway, NV; and $3,700,000 for the Columbia River Gorge Highway, OR. interstate discretionary Under the ISTEA highway authorization, the final set-aside of funds for the Interstate Discretionary Program occurred in fiscal year 1995. As of May 1996, $71,000,000 of these funds were available for distribution which is expected to occur in fiscal year 1997. ferryboat and facilities Under Public Law 102-240, $18,000,000 is available in fiscal year 1997 for ferryboat and facilities construction. Within this amount the Committee directs that $3,000,000 be available for a ferryboat for the Metlakatla, AK, project, and $2,500,000 for a ferry terminal at Clinton, WA. timber bridge Section 1039(e) of Public Law 102-240 provides discretionary highway timber research and demonstration program funding. Consistent with the criteria established in section 1039, $1,000,000 is available for research grants and information transfer and $7,500,000 is available for construction grants. The Committee directs that, out of construction grants, $2,000,000 be available for the covered bridge restoration project in Vermont. HIGH-PRIORITY CORRIDORS Section 1105(h) of Public Law 102-240 provides discretionary funds to study high-priority corridors for possible inclusion in the National Highway System. Consistent with the criteria established in section 1105(h), the Committee directs that the Hoosier Heartland industrial corridor (Indiana), the Heartland Expressway (South Dakota/Nebraska), and State Highway 71, Alaska, be given priority consideration to receive these study and planning funds. scenic byways Consistent with the criteria established in section 1047 of Public Law 102-240 for the Scenic Byways Program, the FHWA may use previously provided contract authority in fiscal year 1997 for scenic byways. Out of these funds, the Committee directs that $750,000 be available to prevent development on the Blue Ridge Parkway in North Carolina and $1,400,000 for Mount Rogers National Recreational Area Virginia State Route 600 upgrade. INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Committee House allowance recommendation \1\ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Utah [ATMS]........................ $3,000,000 $7,000,000 Inglewood, CA...................... 1,000,000 1,000,000 Houston corridor, TX............... 2,400,000 .................. I-10 Mobile, AL.................... 4,000,000 .................. VA/MD capital beltway.............. 5,000,000 .................. Operation Respond, Maryland........ 1,000,000 .................. Kansas City, MO (region)........... ............... 5,000,000 University of North Dakota......... 1,000,000 1,000,000 Minnesota guidestar................ 5,900,000 .................. Moorhead, MN....................... 100,000 100,000 Texas Transportation Institute..... 600,000 600,000 Nashville, TN...................... 1,000,000 .................. United States/Canada CVO........... ............... 2,000,000 TRANSCOM, New York/New Jersey...... ............... 5,500,000 Rochester, NY, congestion management........................ ............... 2,800,000 Pennsylvania Turnpike.............. 4,000,000 3,000,000 Urban Transportation Safety Systems Center (Philadelphia)............. ............... 500,000 New York State Thruway............. ............... 5,000,000 National Transportation Center, Oakdale, NY....................... 4,000,000 .................. Advanced railroad/highway crossings ............... 2,500,000 Hazardous materials monitoring system............................ 3,000,000 .................. Oregon green light CVO project..... 5,000,000 9,700,000 National advanced driver simulator \2\............................... ............... 14,000,000 Rensselaer County, I-90 connector \3\............................... ............... 2,000,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\ The Committee is recommending funding up to the levels listed and not absolute amounts. It believes FHWA should have maximum ability to maximize State, local, and private funding for these projects. \2\ These funds are expected to be derived from section 6058(b) of Public Law 102-240. \3\ These funds are reprogrammed from the Southern State Parkway, New York Inform system. In order to maximize the Federal investment the Committee intends that any funding provided be used only in support of or research on intelligent transportation systems and not for construction of buildings. Because the national advanced driving simulator [NADS] will be used to evaluate numerous ITS options, the Committee recommends that NADS become a part of the formal ITS program and coordinated through the Joint Program Office. The Committee further directs the Joint Program Office to coordinate the development of this simulator with others being developed under the ITS program, and where appropriate to consolidate efforts. Right-of-Way Revolving Fund (Limitation on Direct Loans) (Highway Trust Fund) Appropriations, 1996.................................................... Budget estimate, 1997................................................... House allowance......................................................... Committee recommendation................................ $8,000,000 The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968 authorized $300,000,000 for the establishment of the Right-of-Way Revolving Fund. This fund is utilized to make cash advances to the States for the purpose of purchasing right-of-way parcels in advance of highway construction and thereby preventing the inflation of land prices from causing a significant increase in construction costs. When right-of-way acquisition has been made and highway construction is initiated, the State becomes eligible for Federal grants under the various Federal-aid highway authorizations. At the point when progress payments are made to the State for construction, the State in turn reimburses the revolving fund for advances made to that State for right-of-way acquisition. Utilizing this method of funding, all reimbursements made to the revolving fund may be reallocated to other States requiring advances. The administration requested a prohibition on further obligations for 1997. The Committee has included bill language to allow for the obligation or net reimbursements, that is, when repayments exceed other costs. It is estimated that $8,000,000 is necessary to cover the new, net loans. Motor Carrier Safety Grants (liquidation of contract authorization) (Highway Trust Fund) Appropriations, 1996.................................... ($68,000,000) Budget estimate, 1997................................... (74,000,000) House allowance......................................... (74,000,000) Committee recommendation (74,000,000) This program was first authorized by the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982. It provides grants to States for improved enforcement of Federal and State motor carrier safety rules. It has been shown that added enforcement of truck safety rules reduces truck-related accidents and fatalities. The major objective of this program is to reduce the number and severity of accidents involving commercial motor vehicles. The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation of $74,000,000 level which is the same as the House allowance and the budget request. limitation on obligations The administration proposes to fund the program at the ISTEA-authorized level of $85,000,000. The Committee is recommending an obligation ceiling of $79,000,000 for motor carrier safety grants. This is $6,000,000 below the level requested by the administration and $1,575,000 above the House allowance and expects the funds to be distributed as follows: [In thousands of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year Fiscal year 1996 1997 budget House Committee appropriation estimate allowance recommendation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Basic grants to States.......................... 59,000 63,537 59,800 60,075 Administrative expenses......................... 825 1,063 825 825 Traffic enforcement............................. 6,900 9,000 7,200 8,000 CDL enforcement................................. 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Hazardous materials training.................... 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 Truck and bus accidents......................... 1,750 2,000 1,750 1,750 Uniformity grants............................... 3,450 3,450 2,500 2,500 Uniformity working groups....................... 450 450 350 350 Commercial vehicle information sys- tem........ 1,500 2,000 1,500 2,000 Drug interdiction assistance.................... 500 .............. .............. .............. Research and development........................ 500 500 500 500 Public education................................ 850 500 500 500 --------------------------------------------------------------- Total..................................... 77,225 85,000 77,425 79,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Verification of out-of-service defects.--Since 1989, the Committee has expressed its concerns regarding the problem of drivers violating out-of-service orders issued by MCSAP officers. In response, the FHWA and the States have initiated a variety of efforts to begin to reduce this challenge to the integrity of the MCSAP inspection process. Implementation of the peer review recommendations on enforcement strategies and increased State participation in compliance reviews are part of the solution. Despite these efforts, recent data from a carefully designed field evaluation conducted by the States with FHWA's guidance indicate that still roughly 16 percent of those vehicles/drivers declared out-of-service and then later rechecked during follow-up covert operations continue to violate out-of-service orders. Although the Committee recognizes that covert operations are expensive, this investment serves as a deterrent to those that would seek to subterfuge the intent of the MCSAP. An emphasis on covert operations should continue during fiscal year 1997 for several reasons. It is essential that the baseline data started last year be continued, even at a reduced sample size, so that comparable data are available to monitor progress in addressing this problem. The Committee maintains that those States that continue to have a substantial problem with violators of out-of-service orders will need additional funds to deal with this challenge. Furthermore, most States have already adopted provisions that impose a 3-month license suspension and a $1,000 minimum penalty on any driver convicted of violating an out-of-service order. Because all States will soon have these sanctions, the deterrent value of carefully designed covert operations will increase. New and innovative approaches to covert operations that are not being funded with ITS moneys could be fostered to reduce the costs of this enforcement strategy. Consequently, the Committee's allowance includes a total of $1,000,000 to be allocated among the various covert verification strategies specified above. Any verification activity funded above will be in addition to those originally specified in each State's enforcement plan and are in addition to those activities that are required under part 350 of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety regulations. The Committee strongly endorses actions taken by several States to inform any driver issued an out-of-service order for either driver or vehicle violations of the consequences of violating such an order. The Committee agrees with the House directive regarding warn- ings to drivers of the consequences of violating an out-of-service order. Many States have already incorporated such a warning into their inspection process form and hopefully through the efforts of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance and the FHWA more States will implement this strategy. Administrative takedown and MCSAP travel expenses.--The Committee fully supports the House initiative to limit expenses associated with the Challenge contest and agrees with efforts to reduce travel and meeting expenses in order to maximize the amount of funds available for MCSAP inspection and traffic enforcement activities. Alameda Corridor Project Loan Program Appropriations, 1996.................................................... Budget estimate, 1997................................... $58,680,000 House allowance......................................................... Committee recommendation ........................... The National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 included the Alameda transportation corridor as a high-priority corridor for which direct loans are authorized under ISTEA section 1105(I). The corridor is an intermodal project connecting the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to downtown Los Angeles. The project replaces the current 20 miles of at- grade rail lines with a high-speed, below-grade corridor, thereby eliminating over 200 grade crossings. It also widens and improves the adjacent major highway on this alignment and mitigates the impact of increased international traffic transferring through the San Pedro ports. Segments of the Alameda transportation corridor are currently under construction. The appropriated level requested would be used as backing for a $400,000,000 direct Federal loan. The requested backing is intended to permit construction to continue without interruption through the date of an anticipated revenue bond sale. The House bill contains funding for the Alameda Corridor Loan Program under the Federal Railroad Administration's section 505, Redeemable Preference Shares Program. State Infrastructure Banks (highway trust fund) Appropriations, 1996.................................................... Budget estimate, 1997................................... $250,000,000 House allowance......................................................... Committee recommendation 250,000,000 State infrastructure banks are a promising way of facilitating needed infrastructure investment, especially when all levels of government are facing constrained resources. State infrastructure banks are a means of increasing and improving both public and private investment in transportation. The National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 authorized up to 10 pilot States to test State infrastructure banks [SIB's] which would provide greater flexibility to support the financing of projects by using Federal-aid funds for revolving loans and other forms of nontraditional financial assistance for both public and private entities developing eligible transportation projects. States have shown significant interest in exploring the infrastructure financing benefits offered by this concept. The Committee has provided $250,000,000, as requested, for the State Infrastructure Bank Program. In addition, the bill language would allow the Secretary to distribute State infrastructure bank funds to more than 10 States. To date, the administration has approved 10 States for participation in this financing initiative. Those States are California, Missouri, Arizona, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Florida, South Carolina, and Virginia. The Committee understands that there are a number of well-qualified applications submitted by States that would likely be approved for participation in the program in fiscal year 1997 if the existing cap of a 10-State demonstration were lifted. The Committee believes it is important to provide this equity capital and to allow additional States to participate, so that vital construction projects may more quickly move off the drawing boards and into development. The Committee especially notes the approval on June 21, 1996, of the Department of Transportation for the State of California to use the State Infrastructure Bank Program as a means of financing transportation projects that would otherwise be delayed or not possible. The Committee believes that the Alameda corridor project is an excellent candidate for SIB's type financing, and directs that, out of the funds provided, $58,680,000 be available, which will be matched by the State of California to provide for a loan not to exceed $400,000,000, to be used exclusively for the Alameda corridor project. NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Summary of Fiscal Year 1997 Program The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] was established as a separate organizational entity in the Department of Transportation in March 1970, to reduce the mounting number of deaths, injuries, and economic costs resulting from traffic crashes on the Nation's highways. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides for the establishment and enforcement of Federal safety standards for motor vehicles and associated equipment and research, including the operation of required testing facilities and the National Driver Register. The Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act initially provided for the establishment of low-speed collision bumper standards, consumer information activities, diagnostic inspection, and odometer regulations and was later amended to incorporate responsibility for the administration of Federal automotive fuel economy standards. The Highway Safety Act provides for a coordinated highway safety grant program to be carried out by the States, together with supporting research, development, and demonstration programs. Under section 403 of title 23, United States Code, technical assistance is provided to the States in the conduct of their highway safety programs, and research and demonstration projects are conducted to develop and show the effectiveness of new techniques and countermeasures to address highway safety problems including the Safe Communities Injury Control Program initiated in 1996. Grants are provided to the States under title 23, United States Code, section 402 to assist in the establishment and improvement of highway safety programs designed to reduce traffic crashes, deaths, and injuries. Grants are funded as contract authority and apportioned by formula to the States. Incentive grants are also allocated to the States for driver impairment safety programs under title 23, United States Code, section 410. In addition, some Federal-aid highway apportionments may be transferred, pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 153, to States that have not put safety belt use laws into effect. The Committee recommends a total program level of $302,295,000 for the activities and programs of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for fiscal year 1997. This is $49,818,000 less than the budget request and $2,923,000 more than the House allowance. The following table summarizes the Committee recommendations: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year Program 1996 enacted Fiscal year House Committee \1\ 1997 estimate allowance recommendation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Operations and research......................... $125,201,000 $158,513,000 $132,272,000 $133,195,000 Highway traffic safety grants \2\............... 155,100,000 \3\ 193,600,00 0 \3\ 167,100,00 0 169,100,000 --------------------------------------------------------------- Total..................................... 280,301,000 352,113,000 299,372,000 302,295,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Excludes reductions to comply with working capital fund, awards, and administrative provisions and the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996. \2\ Limitation on obligations. \3\ Includes highway-related safety grants program previously funded in FHWA. Operations and Research (Including Highway Trust Fund) Appropriations, 1996 \1\................................ $125,201,000 Budget estimate, 1997................................... 158,513,000 House allowance......................................... 132,272,000 Committee recommendation................................ 133,195,000 \1\ Excludes reductions of $2,840,000 to comply with working capital fund, awards, and administrative provisions, and $206,000 to comply with the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996. The bill includes an appropriation of $133,195,000 for operations and research, which is $25,318,000 less than the budget request and $923,000 more than the House allowance. This level of funding provides for 664 full-time permanent positions, as requested in the budget. The position and FTE levels by program are listed in the table. The amount appropriated is to be distributed as follows: [Dollar amounts in thousands] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year 1996 Fiscal year House Committee Program appropriation 1997 budget allowance recommendation level estimate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Safety performance.............................. $12,255 $14,364 $12,864 $11,264 (Positions)................................. (95) (95) (95) (95) Safety assurance................................ $18,197 $20,244 $19,518 $19,444 (Positions)................................. (103) (103) (103) (103) Highway safety.................................. $44,417 $49,153 $43,993 $45,641 (Positions)................................. (203) (203) (203) (203) Research and analysis........................... $44,437 $67,964 $49,699 $51,133 (Positions)................................. (132) (132) (132) (132) Office of the Administrator..................... $3,820 $3,816 $3,876 $3,816 (Positions)................................. (41) (41) (41) (41) General administration.......................... $8,838 $9,130 $8,830 $8,805 (Positions)................................. (90) (90) (90) (90) Grant administration reimbursement.............. -$6,158 -$6,158 -$6,158 -$6,358 Accountwide adjustments......................... -$605 .............. -$350 -$550 --------------------------------------------------------------- Total..................................... $125,201 $158,513 $132,272 $133,195 (Positions)............................... (664) (664) (664) (664) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Excludes reductions of $2,840,000 to comply with working capital fund, awards, and administrative provisions, and $206,000 to comply with the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996. Adjustments have been made to the administration's requested level in the following accounts: Safety performance standards: New car assessment program.......................... -$1,600,000 Fuel economy program................................ -1,500,000 Safety assurance: Auto safety hotline................... -800,000 Highway safety: Safe communities injury control..................... -900,000 Alcohol, drugs, and State programs.................. -545,000 Older driver research............................... +156,000 Driver fatigue...................................... +2,000,000 State and communities program evaluation............ -1,000,000 State motor vehicle services (evaluation/technical assistance)....................................... -423,000 Rail-highway demonstration program.................. -3,000,000 Research and analysis: Crash avoidance efforts............................. -2,000,000 National advanced driving simulator (funded under FHWA ITS)......................................... -10,500,000 Fatal accident reporting system..................... -216,000 Data analysis program............................... -465,000 State data systems.................................. -1,150,000 Partnership for a new generation of vehicles........ -2,500,000 General administration: Strategic planning.............. -325,000 Accountwide adjustments: Training............................................ -50,000 Computer support.................................... -500,000 safety performance standards New Car Assessment Program.--The Committee recommends $1,942,000 for the NCAP, with respect to frontal crashes, $1,600,000 less than the administration request. Funds have not been provided to expand the NCAP to include either side impact crashes or offset crashes. The side impact standard for passenger cars is effective for the 1997 model year; however, the standard for light trucks (which includes minivans, recreational vehicles, pickups, et cetera) will not be effective until 1999. The Committee believes that side impact NCAP testing should not begin prior to complete implementation of this standard. Moreover, no U.S. standard has been established regarding offset testing. The Committee supports the international harmonization of vehicle safety standards and believes that offset NCAP testing would be premature at this time. Fuel economy.--The Committee recommends $60,000, which is $1,500,000 less than the amount requested. The Committee provides no funds for the proposed environmental impact statement [EIS] for the fuel economy program. Currently, NHTSA does not anticipate any substantial changes in the fuel economy standards and thus a costly EIS on this program is unnecessary. Funds provided will be used to maintain the plants and lines data base regarding fuel economy. Uniform tire quality grading standards.--The House bill includes a prohibition on any rulemaking which would require that passenger car tires be labeled to indicate their low rolling resistance, or fuel economy characteristics. The Committee has included this provision because the need for such labels has not been adequately justified and the additional costs associated with this proposal would likely be prohibitive. Safety warning devices.--The Committee is aware that NHTSA has filed a notice of proposed rulemaking, No. 96-56, which would eliminate the performance standards for triangular warning devices for disabled buses and trucks which exceed 10,000 pounds in weight. The Committee urges NHTSA to proceed in this matter with care to avoid any adverse impact on highway safety. safety assurance Vehicle safety compliance.--The Committee recommendation has provided $6,033,000, the amount requested in the budget. This appropriation includes $186,000 to test compressed natural gas tanks for compliance with NHTSA's new standards. This testing is important because of the increasing number of vehicles--including many public transit buses--powered by compressed natural gas. The funds provided will also support the uniform tire quality grading facility. Auto safety hotline.--The Committee recommends $986,680 to continue present operations of the auto safety hotline. This amount includes the base fiscal year 1996 effort and $330,000 to provide telephonic services. The Committee has not approved the additional $800,000 requested and believes that such funds would not result in more investigations of serious defects. Moreover, the Committee urges NHTSA to maximize the use of the internet both to improve access to safety reports and brochures and to receive information on possible vehicle defects. Odometer fraud program.--The Committee has provided a total of $100,000 for the odometer fraud program. Odometer fraud is a crime that costs consumers over $3,000,000,000 each year by falsely inflating the cost of used cars and causing unplanned maintenance and repair costs. These funds include the requested increase of $40,000 above the current program level and will enhance NHTSA's efforts to investigate such illegal activities. Vehicle domestic content labeling.--The Committee has included $500,000, the amount requested in the budget, for NHTSA to audit the accuracy of domestic content calculations made by manufacturers of passenger cars and light trucks. The America Automobile Labeling Act requires each manufacturer of more than 1,000 vehicles annually to calculate the United States-Canadian parts content and display it and other related information on its vehicles. The act also requires the Secretary of Transportation to establish a procedure to verify this label information. Audits of four selected car lines of two manufacturers (one foreign and one domestic) will be conducted to assess this data and to assist the Commerce Department and the United States Trade Representative in monitoring the goal of the United States-Japan trade agreement to increase domestic content of Japanese automobiles and light trucks sold in the United States. Although the Committee has funded the budget request for this audit, the Committee remains concerned about the manner in which domestic content is computed including whether United States assembly work is counted, whether parts furnished by United States parts suppliers are considered domestic content, as well as the treatment of Canadian parts as domestic. These are issues that will affect the accuracy of an audit, and the Committee believes that NHSTA should be aware of them. highway safety programs Safe communities: injury control.--The Committee recommends $900,000 to fund two additional demonstrations of the Safe Communities Injury Control Program. This program requires additional test sites to evaluate more comprehensively the effectiveness of this approach to improving highway safety, including pedestrian and bicycle safety. Because NHTSA received a large number of promising applications to its initial solicitation, the Committee supports the expansion of this project. The additional funds provided will allow the testing of this concept in various geographical locations with the participation of different safety, business, medical, and allied health groups. Alcohol, drugs, and State programs.--The Committee has provided $9,882,000, the same amount appropriated for fiscal year 1996, but $545,000 less than the administration's request. Current funding represents an increase of 14 percent over fiscal year 1995 levels. During the last few years, NHTSA has targeted a substantial portion of its section 403 alcohol countermeasure program to address the challenges posed by youth. The Committee encourages NHTSA to maintain a focused youth-oriented initiative under its section 403 program and recommends continuation of the current funding level of $1,772,000 for youth-oriented alcohol public education and enforcement activities. National Occupant Protection Program.--The Committee has provided $6,958,000, the amount requested, in order to enhance NHTSA's effort to meet the national goal of 75 percent belt use rate throughout the United States. Older driver research.--The Committee recommends a total of $600,000 to accelerate research beneficial to older drivers. The population of older drivers is steadily increasing and efforts to improve the driving performance of older drivers deserve sustained support. NHTSA's research program is developing information that will assist older drivers, their families, and State officials in making appropriate driving, licensing, and mobility decisions. In order to assist this important effort, the Committee is recommending an increase of $156,000 above the amount requested. The Committee further believes that NHTSA should continue its work on demonstration activities for technologies and practices to improve driving performance of older drivers at risk of losing their licenses, as the Committee recommended last year. Driver fatigue, sleep disorders, and inattention.--The Committee has been pleased with the initiatives taken by NHTSA to begin to address the problems of driver fatigue, sleep disorders, and inattention. NHTSA data indicate a significant number of nonfatal and fatal crashes are attributed to drivers falling asleep behind the wheel and driver inattention. The Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 in funding for accelerated NHTSA activity in this important area. Funding should be utilized to collaborate directly with the National Center on Sleep Disorders Research to conduct and assess public information activities about driver fatigue, sleep disorders, and inattention. The Committee strongly urges that NHTSA consider the national center an equal partner in this collaboration. The Committee directs NHTSA to submit a report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, prior to markup of the fiscal year 1998 Transportation appropriations bill, that specifically describes the collaborative efforts and funding activities between NHTSA and the National Center on Sleep Disorders Research. Speed and unsafe driving.--The Committee recommends $556,000 for the speed and unsafe driving activity, the same amount as requested in the administration's budget. The Committee has deleted a House earmark of $200,000 for a study regarding the repeal of the national speed limit. This earmark was not included in the budget request. State and communities program evaluation.--The Committee provides no funds for this initiative. If special evaluations are needed, funds should be derived from the base section 403 program. State motor vehicle services (evaluations/technical assistance).--The Committee recommends $1,330,000 for records and licensing, $423,000 less than the request. The Committee provides no funds for a new initiative on evaluations under the section 403 program, but has recommended $200,000 for this purpose from the administrative takedown under the section 402 program. Rail-Highway Demonstration Program.--The Committee notes that Federal support of Operation Lifesaver is included within ``Federal Highway Administration'' and ``Federal Railroad Administration'' accounts. Starting a new initiative would be duplicative and would entail unnecessary and costly startup and administrative costs. No funds have been provided for this initiative. Ensuring the intended use of section 403 funds.--The Committee maintains that section 403 funds are to be used primarily to support new and innovative traffic safety programs. NHTSA has indicated that after 1997, several programs that have been funded using section 403 funds for many years should be able to continue on their own with the assistance and continued support of various groups and individuals, primarily from the private sector. The Committee encourages NHTSA to work with these organizations to ensure a smooth transition away from dependence on Federal funding. Airbag deployment-child passenger safety education outreach.--The Committee directs the NHTSA to provide $137,000 within the funds provided to conduct education and outreach to help inform parents of potential dangers of automobile airbag deployment in connection with infant and child car seats. The Committee is concerned with the increasing number of fatalities and injuries to children and the need for greater public awareness of proper safety measures that should be used in connection with airbags. The Committee expects this funding to be used by NHTSA to promote proper safety techniques to the general public. research and analysis Biomechanics.--The Committee recommends $7,450,000, the amount requested in the budget, and $1,000,000 above the House allowance. The biomechanics program studies, develops, and improves NHTSA's understanding of the impact injury process and provides scientific underpinning for the crashworthiness research program. In future budget submissions, the Committee encourages the Department to allocate the costs of the National Transportation Biomechanics Research Center among the modal administrations that are expected to benefit from the research to be managed by the center. The Committee also urges NHTSA to redouble its efforts to obtain cost-sharing commitments with other organizations that would benefit from the center. This appropriation continues funding for hospital-based, indepth crash injury studies at four trauma centers. Currently these centers are located at the William Lehman Injury Research Center at Jackson Memorial Hospital, Miami; the National Study Center for Trauma and EMS, Baltimore; the University of Medicine and Dentistry, New Jersey; and the Children's National Medical Center, Washington, DC. In fiscal year 1997, NHTSA intends to complement this effort by means of cooperation, coordination, and computer data linkage with three trauma centers that receive private funding to conduct similar research. The Committee has provided $1,000,000 above the House level to enhance three important NHTSA efforts in the following areas: --First, NHTSA plans to develop common data elements and investigate protocols and a common and shared computerized data base system, to link all seven centers together and merge their data into a common pool for use by all participants and sponsors, thus avoiding duplication of efforts. --Second, NHTSA's university-based impact injury research centers currently located at the Medical College of Wisconsin, University of Virginia, Ohio State University, and Hannemen Medical Center will study and quantify the actual mechanical processes and thresholds that cause significant injury patterns such as those caused by airbag inflation (especially those affecting children), and NHTSA should help ensure that no duplication of efforts occurs by thoroughly reviewing the current literature and safety practices and by promoting close coordination of these research efforts. --Third, NHTSA should use its improved biomechanical understanding of various injury processes to enhance crash test dummy component development efforts. The Committee directs NHTSA to provide up to $300,000 within the funds provided to conduct research on child safety seats and automobile airbag deployment. The Committee is concerned with the alarming number of children who have been killed or seriously injured by the forceful deployment of passenger airbags when seated in the front seat or buckled into infant and child safety seats. Due to the number of fatalities and injuries, the Committee directs NHTSA to perform research on airbag safety in connection with infant and child car seats. Funding should be used to conduct a comprehensive, interdisciplinary study involving pediatric trauma experts, engineers, and epidemiologists on means to prevent additional deaths and injuries. Crash avoidance efforts.--The Committee has provided $2,597,000 for crash avoidance research, $12,500,000 less than the budget request. The Committee concurs with the House report in providing funds for the national advanced driving simulator [NADS] through the use of contract authority provided to the Federal Highway Administration's ITS Joint Program Office. The Committee notes that, while FHWA's Joint Program Office will be the cognizant coordinating office for the NADS as it relates to the entire ITS program, NHTSA retains the primary responsibility to ensure the success of the program. NHTSA is expected to continue its role regarding cooperative agreements and contracts concerning NADS. NHTSA should continue its efforts to avoid increases in the cost of completing the NADS. The host site has a responsibility for operating the facility on a self-sustaining basis as agreed to in the cooperative agreement with NHTSA. The Committee is concerned that any reduction in the hourly operational rate of NADS would jeopardize the ability of the NADS to operate without a subsidy. The projected hourly rate for NADS is one- third the rate of the Daimler-Benz facility, a lower fidelity simulator than NADS from which DOT purchased time in the past. Any additional reduction in the hourly rate for NADS might jeopardize the ability of NADS to be self-sustaining. The original hourly rate allowed for the continuous maintenance and technology upgrades of the facility over the life of the project. The Committee recognizes that advances in this technology will take place at a rapid rate which will require state-of-the-art improvements. Thus, the hourly rate charged to the Government should not cause higher costs to other private users and should be sufficient to allow the facility to both operate efficiently and take advantage of technology advances. The hourly rate should be periodically examined with those factors in mind. The Committee has provided $2,000,000 to conduct research addressing rollover crashes (which account for over 25 percent of all light-duty vehicle fatalities); antilock braking systems [ABS]; and $597,000 for heavy vehicles/driver performance. Fatal accident reporting system [FARS].--The Committee provides $5,035,000 for FARS, which is $216,000 below the administration's request. The additional $450,000 provided above the fiscal year 1996 base will promote participation by all States in this essential data system and allow funds for the imaging of State source documents including police accident reports. Data analysis program.--Due to budgetary constraints, the Committee recommends $1,635,000 for the data analysis program, the same level as provided by the House. This is an increase of $220,000 above the enacted fiscal year 1996 level, but $465,000 below the administration's requested level of $2,100,000. State data systems.--Due to budgetary constraints, the Committee recommends $2,700,000 for State data systems, which is $1,150,000 less than the amount requested. Partnership for a new generation of vehicles [PNGV].--The Committee concurs with the House and recommends $2,500,000 for the partnership for a new generation of vehicles [PNGV], which is $2,500,000 below the amount requested. The Committee maintains that the crash simulation effort should be initiated but believes that the full amount requested is not yet needed due to delays in the PNGV program. The Committee has not provided funds for infrastructure analysis and economic analysis because such efforts would be premature with respect to the status of the PNGV program. Budget submission.--The Committee requests that NHTSA's fiscal year 1998 budget submission for the Research and Analysis Program contain the same level of detail and quality of presentation as the fiscal years 1995 and 1996 submissions. Bicycle safety.--The Committee notes that children ages 5 to 14 are the most common victims of bicycle injuries, with bicycling the fourth leading cause of death for that age group. Of the 500,000 bicycling injuries occurring in the United States each year, the age group 5 to 14 accounts for more than 50 percent. The Committee directs NHTSA to fairly consider a proposal by Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University that uses the new technology of virtual reality, computers, and robotics, combined with medical science, to study bicycle injuries and deaths. This research venture would test several thousand children of varying age in a simulator that will identify factors causing bicycle trauma. From this data, it is hoped that bicycle accidents could be reduced by designing effective prevention programs. general administration Strategic planning.--Due to budget limitations, the Committee has not included the $325,000 requested for strategic planning. Internal agency resources can be used for this purpose. Economic analysis.--The Committee recommends funding of $175,000, as requested by the administration. The results of the economic analysis will provide better guidance on the true cost of accidents and thereby assist NHTSA in managing its programs and priorities. accountwide adjustments Training.--The Committee has deleted the $50,000 requested for training related to customer service. Computer support.--The Committee notes that NHTSA has requested $3,211,000 for computer support, an 18.4-percent increase over the fiscal year 1996 level. Funding for computer support has increased substantially in the last several years. The Committee recommends maintaining funding at the current level of $2,711,000. general provisions NHTSA rulemaking on CAFE standards.--The Committee has deleted bill language added by the House to withhold funds with respect to a NHTSA rulemaking regarding corporate average fuel economy [CAFE] standards (sec. 323). Funding issues regarding CAFE standards are also addressed in previous portions of this report. Exemption to odometer disclosure requirement.--The Committee has included a general provision (sec. 332) enabling the Secretary of Transportation to administer and implement the exemption provisions of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act. These provisions have, for more than 20 years, exempted sellers of large trucks from the odometer disclosure regulation because these vehicles (weighing over 16,000 pounds) often travel more than 15,000 miles a month, and over the years their odometers may turn over several times. Most purchasing decisions with respect to these vehicles are based on service and maintenance records rather than odometer readings. Highway Traffic Safety Grants (Liquidation of Contract Authorization) (Highway Trust Fund) Appropriations, 1996.................................... ($155,100,000) Budget estimate, 1997................................... (191,000,000) House allowance......................................... (167,100,000) Committee recommendation (169,100,000) The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (Public Law 102-240) provides for the continuation of the safety formula grant program. Grant allocations are determined on the basis of a statutory formula established under 23 U.S.C. 402. Individual States use this funding in national priority areas established by Congress which have the greatest potential for achieving safety improvements and reducing traffic crashes, fatalities, and injuries. Activities are centered predominantly on efforts to control drivers impaired by alcohol and drugs; stimulate activities to improve occupant protection; improve traffic law enforcement and speed control; improve the quality of emergency medical services and trauma care systems; improve motorcycle, pedestrian, and bicycle safety; improve the collection and analysis of traffic accident data; and establish and maintain a computerized traffic recordkeeping system. The administration's request has merged a similar program previously funded under FHWA with this account. The Committee recommends an appropriation for liquidation of contract authorization of $169,100,000 for the payment of obligations incurred in carrying out provisions of the State and Community Highway Safety Program (sec. 402) and the Impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive Grant Program (sec. 410). The Committee has retained a House provision prohibiting the use of section 402 funds for construction, rehabilitation or remodeling costs, or for office furnishings and fixtures for State, local, or private buildings or structures. limitation on obligations The bill includes language limiting the obligations to be incurred under the various highway traffic safety grants programs, as requested in the budget. Separate obligation limitations are included in the bill with the following funding allocations: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year Fiscal year House Committee 1996 enacted 1997 estimate allowance recommendation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 402................................. $127,700,000 <SUP>1 $166,200,000 <SUP>1 $138,700,000 \1\ $141,700,00 0 Section 410................................. 25,000,000 25,000,000 26,000,000 25,000,000 National Driver Register.................... 2,400,000 2,400,000 2,400,000 2,400,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Total................................. 155,100,000 193,600,000 167,100,000 169,100,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Merges FHWA's and NHTSA's section 402 formula grant programs. The Committee has included an obligation limitation of $141,700,000 in the bill, which is $24,500,000 less than the budget request. This limitation includes $129,700,000 for NHTSA's section 402 grant program and $12,000,000 for FHWA's section 402 grant program. Language is included in the bill limiting funds available for Federal grants administration to $5,468,000 for NHTSA and $150,000 for FHWA. Over the last several years, NHTSA has made substantial progress in improving the Federal/State relationship in highway safety. The most significant recent action has been to allow States to submit a performance-based highway safety plan. Almost all of the States will soon have in place this alternative way to apply for and manage section 402 funds, allowing them to better manage their own highway safety programs while minimizing Federal interference. The Committee looks forward to the continued evolution of this initiative. Evaluation of State and community programs.--NHTSA is expanding its new performance-based procedures for the section 402 program, which provides more flexibility to State grantees. Under the new process, States set their own highway safety performance goals and measurements; NHTSA provides program and technical assistance to the States. As the new pilot program expands, participants will benefit from additional technical assistance as they build the capacity to assess the effectiveness of their own performance. Consequently, within the funds provided for the administrative takedown for the section 402 program, $200,000 is provided to help States conduct evaluations. The funding to support this initiative shall be available through each of NHTSA's regional offices to the States. No earmarking for section 402.--In fiscal year 1996, NHTSA designed new performance-based procedures for the section 402 program, and 16 States joined the new section 402 pilot process. For fiscal year 1997, 40 States, the District of Columbia, and three territories have elected to use the new approach. This commendable new management process gives States more responsibility to determine the best use of limited highway safety funds. Therefore, the Committee has decided not to earmark these funds for any specific programs, such as youth traffic safety or safe communities. The Committee concurs with the House that the States are best able to determine their individual needs. FORMULA GRANTS (SEC. 410) The Committee proposes a total limitation of $25,000,000 for obligations to be incurred under the section 410 Alcohol- Impaired Driving Countermeasures Program authorized under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. The section 410 program has provided incentives to States to implement innovative strategies to reduce drunk and drugged driving, and constitutes an essential part in the Secretary's goal to reduce alcohol-related traffic deaths. To receive grants under the section 410 program, States must satisfy certain basic criteria established by Congress, including prompt license suspension, legal blood-alcohol content levels, sobriety checkpoints, self-sustaining community alcohol programs, mandatory sentencing, and control of access to alcohol by youth. Supplemental grant funding is available to States that meet additional criteria, including .02 BAC zero tolerance laws for drivers under age 21, open container laws, strict drugged driving prevention programs, and mandatory BAC testing programs. Section 410 grants funds may be used only to support programs to reduce impaired driving. The bill includes language, as requested, providing that $500,000 of the section 410 moneys shall be used for technical assistance. national driver register The National Driver Register [NDR] is a central repository of information on individuals whose licenses to operate a motor vehicle have been revoked, suspended, canceled, or denied. As authorized by Congress, the NDR is transitioning to an electronic problem driver pointer system to facilitate the decisionmaking by State driver licensing officials. NHTSA is preparing for transfer of certain NDR activities to a non- Federal entity. The NDR also contains information on persons who have been convicted of serious traffic-related violations such as driving while impaired by alcohol or other drugs. State driver licensing officials query the NDR when individuals apply for a license, for the purpose of determining whether driving privileges have been withdrawn by other States. Other organizations such as the Federal Aviation Administration and the Federal Railroad Administration also use NDR license data in hiring and certification decisions in overall U.S. transportation operations. The bill includes an obligation limitation of $2,400,000 for the NDR, which is the same as the administration's request. FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION Summary of Fiscal Year 1997 Program The Federal Railroad Administration [FRA] became an operating administration within the Department of Transportation on April 1, 1967. It incorporated the Bureau of Railroad Safety from the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Office of High Speed Ground Transportation from the Department of Commerce, and the Alaska Railroad from the Department of the Interior. The Federal Railroad Administration is responsible for planning, developing, and administering programs to achieve safe operating and mechanical practices in the railroad industry. Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) and other financial assistance programs to rehabilitate and improve the railroad industry's physical plant are also administered by the Federal Railroad Administration. The Committee recommends new appropriations and obligation limitations totaling $1,006,671,000 for the activities of the Federal Railroad Administration for fiscal year 1997. This is $41,666,000 less than the budget request and $294,017,000 more than the House allowance. The following table summarizes the Committee recommendations: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year Fiscal year Program 1996 enacted 1997 budget House allowance Committee \1\ estimate recommendation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office of the Administrator................ $14,018,000 $16,883,000 $16,469,000 $16,739,000 Railroad safety............................ 49,919,000 51,864,000 51,407,000 51,407,000 Railroad research and development.......... 24,550,000 24,565,000 20,341,000 20,000,000 Northeast Corridor Improvement Program..... 115,000,000 200,000,000 ................ 200,000,000 High-speed rail trainsets and facilities... ............... 80,000,000 80,000,000 80,000,000 Next generation high-speed rail............ \2\ 24,205,000 26,525,000 19,757,000 26,525,000 Rhode Island rail development.............. 1,000,000 10,000,000 4,000,000 10,000,000 Direct Loan Financing Program.............. ............... ............... 58,680,000 ............... Direct loan limitation..................... ............... ............... (400,000,000) ............... Grants to National Railroad Passenger Corporation \3\........................... 635,000,000 638,500,000 462,000,000 592,000,000 Alaska railroad rehabilitation............. 10,000,000 ............... ................ 10,000,000 -------------------------------------------------------------------- Total.................................. 873,692,000 1,048,337,000 712,654,000 1,006,671,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Excludes reductions to comply with working capital fund, awards, and administrative provisions and the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996. \2\ Includes limitation on obligations of $5,000,000. \3\ Includes mandatory passenger rail service payments. Office of the Administrator Appropriations, 1996 \1\................................ $14,018,000 Budget estimate, 1997................................... 16,883,000 House allowance......................................... 16,469,000 Committee recommendation................................ 16,739,000 \1\ Excludes reductions of $354,000 to comply with working capital fund, awards, and administrative provisions. The Office of the Administrator provides support and guidance on issues concerning the railroad industry and the day-to-day operations of the Federal Railroad Administration. The appropriation includes budget activities related to executive direction and administration and policy support aimed at resolving problems facing the railroad industry. For the Office of the Administrator, the Committee provides $16,739,000. The amount provided is $144,000 less than the administration's request and $270,000 more than the House allowance. committee recommendation Civil rights.--The Committee concurs with the House's reduction of $144,000, which the administration has requested to add back funding for civil rights activities. Ravenna, OH, connection.--The Committee does not concur on the need to study an Amtrak connection from Ravenna to Youngstown, OH. Office of Chief Counsel.--The Committee directs that none of the personnel reductions planned for fiscal year 1997 shall be obtained from the Safety Division of the Office of Chief Counsel in order to ensure that sufficient staff support is provided for this important area. Railroad Safety Appropriations, 1996 \1\................................ $49,919,000 Budget estimate, 1997................................... 51,864,000 House allowance......................................... 51,407,000 Committee recommendation................................ 51,407,000 \1\ Excludes reduction of $291,000 to comply with working capital fund, awards, and administrative provisions, and $70,000 to comply with the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996. This appropriation finances the development, administration, and enforcement of programs designed to achieve safe operating and mechanical practices in the railroad industry. The Committee recommends a $51,407,000 program level for the Railroad Safety Program. This is the same as the House allowance. committee recommendation The Committee recommends the following adjustments to the budget request: Ten percent increase for communications, utilities, and miscellaneous....................................... -$107,000 Reduce costs associated with new rail safety advisory committee........................................... -150,000 Hold printing and reproduction costs to 10 percent increase............................................ -15,000 Hold other services to 5 percent increase............... -185,000 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Net adjustment.................................... -457,000 Communications, utilities, and miscellaneous.--The Committee supports the House recommendation of $798,000 for communications, utilities, and miscellaneous expenses, an increase of 10 percent above the enacted level. FRA has requested pagers for its inspectors and toll-free numbers for many of its field offices. The Committee believes that such costs can be deferred and should be reexamined. Rail Safety Advisory Committee.--FRA has requested $200,000 to establish a Rail Safety Advisory Committee [RSAC] to facilitate progress on its substantial regulatory backlog. The new RSAC is comprised of 48 individuals from 27 member organizations. Hopefully, the RSAC's large size will not diminish its effectiveness in helping FRA reduce its safety regulatory backlog. The Committee notes, however, that the FRA administrator has the final responsibility to move the agency's safety agenda forward and to lead the process. To adequately support this initiative, the Committee provides $50,000 which is consistent with funding levels provided to other DOT advisory committees. If additional funding proves to be essential, the FRA administrator may reduce other administrative expenses, other than training for Federal and State safety inspectors, to provide such funds. Rail safety studies.--The Committee continues to be concerned with the FRA's efforts in the area of rail safety, especially in the wake of the recent fatal accidents in Secaucus, NJ, and Silver Spring, MD. The Committee is aware of ongoing efforts within the FRA to improve rail safety. However, the Committee believes that a more aggressive approach may be warranted. As such, the Committee directs the Administrator to conduct the following studies and issue reports on the status of these efforts to the Committee by June 1, 1997. The Administrator should include in the reports recommendations as to whether the programs should be implemented for the purpose of public safety, and, if the recommendation is affirmative, whether the FRA will be issuing regulations to implement the programs. The four following studies shall be conducted: One, study the technical, structural, and economic feasibility of automatic train escape devices and their benefits to public safety. Two, study whether the development of minimum safety standards for fuel tanks of locomotives of rail passenger trains is warranted, taking into account environmental and public safety. The standards may apply to new locomotives, if appropriate. Three, study the feasibility of establishing minimum crashworthiness standards for passenger cab cars, including requiring crash posts at the corners of rail passenger cars and safety locomotives on rail passenger trains. Four, study the placement of rail signals along railways, including whether FRA should require that a signal be placed along a railway at each exist of a rail station, and that a signal be placed so that it is visible only to the train employee of a train that the signal is designed to influence. Printing and reproduction.--The Committee supports the House recommendation and provides $102,000 for printing and reproduction, a 10-percent increase over the fiscal year 1996 level. Other services.--The Committee supports the House limitation of a 5-percent increase above fiscal year 1996 and provides $4,638,000. Safety assurance and compliance program.--Last year, FRA was directed to report to the Committee on how an appropriate balance is being achieved between the resources used to promote cooperation and educational assistance and those used for enforcement. The report was to detail improvements, or lack thereof, in compliance for each of the railroads for which FRA approved a safety action plan. The Committee urges the FRA to complete this important report since it is now overdue. Improvement needed in the completeness of budget submission.--The Committee found the Office of Safety budget submission lacking in details. In addition to justifying new initiatives, future budget requests for this office should specify and explain expenses and activities in the base program including: funds for drug testing, information services, permanent change of station, training, RSAC, et cetera. Railroad Research and Development Appropriations, 1996.................................... $24,550,000 Budget estimate, 1997................................... 24,565,000 House allowance......................................... 20,341,000 Committee recommendation 20,000,000 The Federal Railroad Administration's Railroad Research and Development Program provides for research in the development of safety and performance standards for high speed rail and the evaluation of their role in the Nation's transportation infrastructure. The program also provides support for the Deputy Associate Administrator for Technology Development and the staff of the Office of Research and Development. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $20,000,000 for railroad research and development. The amount provided is $4,565,000 less than the President's request and $341,000 less than the House allowance. Amtrak privatization study.--For purposes of identifying private options that will result in a world class national rail passenger system in the United States, the Committee encourages the FRA to conduct a study on privatization of intercity rail passenger service. Such a study may investigate the alternatives of: (a) a passenger system operating under the franchise of a public or private national coordinating authority with service provided by one or more private operators; (b) an option of privatization of Amtrak with a significant, sustainable, and stable source of capital funding; or (c) Federal withdrawal from all intercity passenger responsibility. The study could include the recommendations of the Discovery Institute Inquiry on Passenger Rail Privatization of October 1995, the British passenger rail privatization methodology, the Amtrak proposal for privatization with access to a trust fund, and any other plans deemed reasonable by those conducting the study. The study shall seek analysis and opinion from the Federal Railroad Administrator, Amtrak, the General Accounting Office, freight railroads, rail labor, and States currently planning intercity rail passenger service. At a minimum, views shall be sought from the States with a wide representation of urban and rural needs. A report should be submitted to the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations by August 1, 1997. Mitigation study.--The Committee has been informed of local community concerns in Auburn, WA, regarding the reopening of Stampede Pass rail line operated by Burlington Northern-Santa Fe Railroad. For that reason, $100,000 is provided for the FRA to work with officials from the city of Auburn in conducting a study to mitigate the impacts of this line. The Committee also notes that local matching funds will be provided to complete this study. committee recommendation The Committee recommends the following changes to the administration's budget submission: New program initiatives................................. -$2,725,000 Delete funding for maglev initiative.................... -1,000,000 Reduce costs of environmental program................... -200,000 Decrease funding due to unobligated balances............ -640,000 New program initiatives.--The Committee agrees with the House reduction in new program initiatives and has deleted $2,725,000, as did the House. The Committee directs that FRA continue the ongoing Oregon positive train separation project referenced in House Report 104-286 from within available account balances. Maglev technologies.--Due to budget constraints, the Committee has deleted $1,000,000 requested to work in concert with the Air Force, Navy, and NASA, who are working on military and space launch applications of maglev technology. This reduction is made without prejudice to future funding requests for projects to ensure the safety of maglev systems. The Committee recognizes that pursuant to section 359(d) of the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995, the Secretary is conducting a study evaluating the near-term applications of magnetic levitation ground transportation technology in the United States. Given the potential environmental benefits and job creation associated with maglev technology, the Committee commends the Department for its continuing efforts to establish maglev transportation as an alternative mode of passenger and small freight transportation. Although current fiscal constraints preclude a substantial Federal role in developing maglev technology, the Committee believes that FRA should continue to evaluate which maglev projects may warrant immediate application, especially those already certified elsewhere for commercial passenger service. Environmental program.--The Committee has reduced the environmental program by $200,000 in view of the substantial amount of funds already spent on understanding health and safety issues regarding electromagnetic fields. Grade crossing safety.--The Committee recommends $300,000 to support Operation Lifesaver activities, the amount requested in the budget. A portion of these funds will be used to identify selected examples of effective practices or strategies used to promote grade crossing safety and to make this information readily available. Operating practices.--The Committee seeks to ensure that the operating practices program continues a strong focus on fatigue, stress, and other human dynamic questions not adequately addressed by private sector research, and has provided $2,595,000, the amount requested in the budget, for research on operating practices. Approximately one-third of all train accidents are due to human factors, including inadequate training, conflicting rules, fatigue, and irregular work hours. The Committee urges FRA to continue its efforts regarding stress and fatigue research, focusing on workplace factors involving scheduling, duration, and notification of work assignments and associated mitigation strategies aimed at reducing stress and fatigue experienced by locomotive engineers and dispatchers. Also within the funds provided for operating practices, the Committee recommends $100,000 for the ergonomics of advanced train control. This is the same amount allocated during fiscal year 1996. Passenger car standards.--The Committee urges FRA to complete necessary research to support the development of passenger car standards, and has provided $800,000 for this research, the amount requested in the budget. Strategic plan and improved budget submission.--The Committee concurs with the House request for a 5-year strategic plan of FRA's research and development program. In addition, this report should include the next generation program. Budget submission.--In order to ensure the continuity of the FRA research and development and the high-speed rail safety programs, the Committee requests that future budget submissions present funding levels for the past 2 years as well as the proposed levels of funding for each of the major projects for which support is requested. Oregon Graduate Institute [OGI].--The Committee has continued the provision providing the FRA with explicit grant authority with the Oregon Graduate Institute. The OGI has been identified as a national resource for research in rail metallurgy. The administration continues to support its unique grant arrangement with the OGI for research on surface and subsurface initiated fatigue defects in rail steel. Northeast Corridor Improvement Program Appropriations, 1996.................................... $115,000,000 Budget estimate, 1997................................... 200,000,000 House allowance......................................................... Committee recommendation 200,000,000 Title VII of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976, as amended, created the Northeast corridor improvement project [NECIP] to upgrade and modernize the rail corridor between Washington, DC, and Boston, MA, the most heavily used rail passenger corridor in the Nation. Since 1976, some $3,600,000,000 has been invested by the Federal Government in the railroad. Amtrak is responsible for implementing the goals of NECIP, defined as regularly scheduled service between New York and Washington in 2 hours 30 minutes and between New York and Boston in 3 hours. Over 200,000,000 intercity and commuter rail passengers travel on some portions of the Northeast corridor rail line each year. Since 1991, funding for the project has focused on two areas: reduction in trip time between New York and Boston; and state-of-good-repair recapitalization of the railroad between New York and Washington. The New York-Boston project is scheduled to be completed by October 1999, following construction of the new electrification system between New Haven and Boston and the delivery of the first of 18 new high- speed trainsets. Many of the infrastructure improvements, necessary to permit up to 150-miles-per-hour speeds and facilitate increased growth on the rail line, have been designed and installed. Electrification construction work began on July 1, 1996. Other essential projects, including work to reduce rail congestion that benefits both Amtrak and commuter operations, also have progressed from design to construction. In March 1996, Amtrak announced the award of a contract for 18 high-speed trainsets, 3 maintenance facilities, and 15 high- speed locomotives. The trainsets will include in excess of 70 percent American content. Importantly, Amtrak has been successful in securing financing for over 80 percent of the procurement--up to $860,000,000 in total financing--and will not be required to repay the debt until delivery of the trainsets for revenue service. The private financing will cover the cost of the trainsets and locomotives; however, because of the difficulty inherent in financing fixed-yard facilities, Amtrak must rely primarily on previously appropriated funds, together with $80,000,000 provided under the ``High-speed rail trainsets and facilities'' account, for the $250,000,000 cost of three maintenance facilities and other program activities. Amtrak projects that the operation of high-speed rail service on the Northeast corridor, made possible through the NECIP improvements, will enable it to generate net incremental revenues (after expenses and debt service) in excess of $150,000,000 per year, once the full fleet of trainsets is in operation. This revenue projection was the product of 2 years of extensive work by Amtrak and a team of industry experts. This incremental revenue will provide much of the funding that will enable Amtrak to eliminate its need for Federal operating support early next century. South of New York, Amtrak continues to seek funding to recapitalize the rail line and to preserve its ability to facilitate 125-miles-per-hour and faster operations. Amtrak is also working with the commuter authorities who operate the majority of the trains on the rail line to develop long-term recapitalization and upgrade programs. In a May 1996 joint report to Congress on the condition of the New York-Washington portion of the Northeast corridor, Amtrak and the FRA reported that some $1,970,000,000 is needed over time to replace critical facilities, improve the safety of the nearly 100-year- old New York tunnels, and to increase the capacity of the rail line. This study reported that Amtrak carries between 12 and 13 percent of all intercity trips in the New York City to Washington, DC, corridor, including those by private automobile. In 1995, Amtrak carried over 40 percent of the combined air and rail common carrier market between these two points, and over 65 percent of the total combined air and rail market when intermediate points (such as Philadelphia to New York City) are included. Amtrak and the FRA are undertaking a more indepth study of the work that will be required in the south end of the Northeast corridor. The Committee recognizes the importance of maintaining and upgrading the condition of this portion of the rail line. The New York-Washington segment of the corridor generates the most riders and the most revenues for Amtrak, and includes portions of five public commuter rail systems, including New Jersey Transit, MARC, SEPTA, LIRR, and URE. The joint Amtrak-FRA study, requested last year, is required to define a long-term program of improvements to preserve the corridor and ensure its ability to accommodate increased intercity and commuter service. In the absence of such a program, it is difficult for the Committee to prioritize the scarce funding available for investment. The Committee urges Amtrak and the FRA to progress phase II of the study as quickly as possible. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The Committee has provided $200,000,000 for the Northeast Corridor Improvement Program. The amount provided is the same as the administration's request and $14,000,000 less than Amtrak's request. The House deleted all funds for NECIP. The Committee has allocated the NECIP funds as requested in the budget: $75,000,000 to progress the high-speed rail improvements north of New York; and $125,000,000 for recapitalization south of New York. The Committee has also included $80,000,000 as the final Federal contribution to the high-speed trainset program under a separate header. For the first time since the inception of the NECIP program in 1976, the House included no funding for investment in the Northeast corridor infrastructure. The House justified this on the availability of so-called balances within the ``NECIP'' account that had not yet been expended by Amtrak. The Committee contends that these balances are illusory. Amtrak's contractual obligations--money it is required to pay to contractors for work that is already underway--exceed the balance of unexpended funds and must remain available to meet Amtrak's payment obligations under the contracts. Moreover, because Amtrak itself undertakes much of the infrastructure work on its own railroad, funds that may be categorized as unexpended or unobligated, in fact, have been committed by Amtrak in the same way as if Amtrak had hired an outside contractor to undertake the work. Significant additional funding is required in fiscal year 1997 to progress work essential to meet the project goals in 1999. In the absence of additional funding during fiscal year 1997, Amtrak will have to suspend all work on the New York- Boston project except electrification and federally required mitigation. Three-hour service will not be achievable in time to generate the incremental revenues that Amtrak requires to offset the elimination of Federal operating support called for in the pending authorization bill. Finally, work to preserve current speeds and enhance safety on the south end of the railroad would stop, further undermining Amtrak's ability to earn revenue from its high-speed operations. The Committee believes that Amtrak cannot become self- sufficient without capital investment in the project it is most dependent upon to generate new and significant revenues. Investment in the Northeast corridor is clearly vital to the future of Amtrak. The Committee has included sufficient funding to permit the timely completion of the New York-Boston program and to progress state of good repairs south of New York. High-Speed Rail Trainsets and Facilities Appropriations, 1996.................................................... Budget estimate, 1997................................... $80,000,000 House allowance......................................... 80,000,000 Committee recommendation 80,000,000 This appropriation will help Amtrak finance the acquisition of trainsets and related maintenance facilities specially designed to offer enhanced high-speed (150 miles per hour) service on the Northeast corridor from Washington, DC, to Boston, MA. The Committee's recommended level is the same as the budget request and House allowance, and $20,000,000 below Amtrak's request. The Committee concurs with the House that this is a one-time grant which, when combined with previously appropriated funds and private vendor financing, will ensure that Amtrak has sufficient funds to progress the needed facility improvements and acquire trainsets for high-speed rail service on the Northeast corridor. Key to Amtrak's efforts to wean itself from Federal operating assistance by fiscal year 2002 is the introduction of modern, electrified high-speed service in the Boston-New York City-Washington, DC, corridor, beginning in 1999. Independent analysis of the potential high-speed market projects that by 2001, this service, using the new high-speed trainsets, will attract over 2 million additional passengers. With the increase in ridership and through yield management, the high-speed service will permit Northeast corridor operations to break even and generate increasing amounts of cash that can offset operating shortfalls in other areas. Without high-speed service, these projects show that the Northeast corridor will never reach a point where a Federal operating subsidy is not needed. The high-speed equipment will serve two purposes. First, it will replace 15-year-old locomotives presently in use, which pull 20-year-old Amfleet cars in Metroliner service. The aging equipment is not capable of achieving the NECIP trip time goals, is experiencing progressively more frequent failures, and does not possess the amenities necessary for Amtrak to attract and retain new riders. Second, the new high-speed equipment will permit Metroliners to directly operate between Washington and Boston, eliminating the need to change trains in New York City and freeing up capacity in congested Pennsylvania Station. The equipment is essential for achievement of the statutory time trip goal for the New York City-to-Boston service of under 3 hours. General provision.--Under the 1976 act establishing the Northeast corridor project, the Secretary of Transportation was required to implement the project (Public Law 94-210, sec. 703). However, as directed by Congress in Public Law 96-954, section 206, the Secretary transferred all authority and responsibility for implementing the project to Amtrak in 1985. The Committee has included a general provision which confirms that the authority transferred to Amtrak to implement NECIP is the same authority that the Secretary had as implementor of the project, including the exemptions from State and local laws which a project undertaken by the United States enjoys. This will help avoid the possibility of time-consuming disputes with respect to State and local requirements applicable to construction, and will help facilitate the investment of private sector funds in the project, particularly for secured financing of high-speed train maintenance facilities. These facilities would cost the Federal Government at least $130,000,000 if not privately financed. Under the Committee provision, secured private sector financing is more likely, because the language permits a private sector corporation to reclaim the train maintenance facilities in the event of an Amtrak bankruptcy. Next Generation High-Speed Rail (including trust funds) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- General Trust \1\ Total ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appropriations, 1996...................................... $19,205,000 $5,000,000 $24,205,000 Budget estimate, 1997..................................... 26,525,000 ................ 26,525,000 House allowance........................................... 19,757,000 ................ 19,757,000 Committee recommendation.................................. 26,525,000 ................ 26,525,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Limitation on obligations. The Committee has provided $26,525,000 in general fund appropriations for the high-speed ground transportation [HSGT] program. This amount, in combination with carryover of $1,420,882 from the trust fund, yields a total Committee recommendation of $27,945,882 for fiscal year 1997. The amount provided is $8,188,882 more than the House allowance and the same as the administration's request. The Committee first provided funding for the Next Generation High-Speed Rail Program in fiscal year 1995. The program is authorized by the Swift Rail Development Act which was enacted in 1994. The Committee commends the progress the Department has made in implementing this new program and recognizes the promise that the program holds for reducing the costs of high-speed rail service, thus expediting its implementation in the United States. From within the funds provided, the Committee recommends the following allocations: Northwest high-speed rail projects.--The sum of $11,100,000 is provided for the State of Oregon for track, signals, grade crossing improvements, and station improvements (Albany, Eugene, Oregon City, and Salem) within the Portland to Eugene segment of the Pacific Northwest high-speed rail corridor. This will complement the significant State and local investment being made in this FRA-designated high-speed rail corridor to achieve 2-hour service between Portland and Eugene. No matching funds shall be required for this project. These funds will assist efforts to enhance developing high-speed rail corridors. Turbo-train upgrades, State of New York.--The sum of $6,000,000 is provided to continue FRA's ongoing project with the State of New York. Moreover, the Committee disagrees with language in the House report stating that FRA should not fund the retrofit of older railcars or locomotives. The Committee supports FRA's position that the use of retired turbine locomotives [RTL's] as test platforms makes sound economic sense. In the RTL II demonstration in 1995, the RTL trainsets demonstrate their capability as low-cost platforms for testing components of advanced electric locomotive designs at speeds of at least 125 miles per hour in real world testing, including revenue service. The RTL II involved testing an advanced gas turbine design as a prime mover. Future testing on RTL test platforms could include further advancements in gas turbine designs, improved transmissions, and other enhancements that would improve performance and ride quality. In addition, at the conclusion of the initial testing phase, the RTL test platform can enter regular revenue service for extended periods of revenue tests, with the added benefit of reducing the demands on Amtrak's limited capital resources to acquire equipment, helping maintain the schedules on the Empire corridor into New York City. If the option of using retired turbine locomotive trainsets is not available to FRA, entirely new test platforms would have to be developed. This could increase the cost of tests or reduce the amount of funding available for testing advancements in nonelectric technology. In addition, there would be no follow-on benefit after the test in the form of operational equipment that could be used in revenue service. Alaska Railroad Rehabilitation Appropriations, 1996.................................... $10,000,000 Budget estimate, 1997................................................... House allowance......................................................... Committee recommendation 10,000,000 The Committee has included $10,000,000 for rail safety improvements benefiting passenger operations of the Alaska railroad. This railroad extends 470 miles from Seward through Anchorage, the largest city in Alaska, to the interior town of Fairbanks. It carries both passengers and freight, and provides a critical transportation link for passengers and cargo traveling through difficult terrain and harsh climatic conditions. Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Project Appropriations, 1996.................................................... Budget estimate, 1997..................................\1\ ($15,000,000) House allowance......................................................... Committee recommendation................................................ \1\ Funding for this project is included in the ``Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation'' appropriation budget request, capital expenses. The Committee has included a discussion of the Pennsylvania Station redevelopment project's funding request and the Committee's subsequent action under the ``Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation capital expenses'' account header. Rhode Island Rail Development Appropriations, 1996.................................... $1,000,000 Budget estimate, 1997................................... 10,000,000 House allowance......................................... 4,000,000 Committee recommendation 10,000,000 For fiscal year 1996, Congress appropriated $1,000,000 to fund construction of a third track on the Northeast corridor between Davisville and Central Falls, RI, with sufficient clearance to accommodate double stack freight cars. The appropriation act stipulated that the State of Rhode Island or its designee provide matching funds on a dollar-for-dollar basis, and that the Providence & Worcester [P&W] Railroad, which would benefit from the third track, enter into an agreement with the Secretary to reimburse Amtrak and/or FRA up to $6,000,000 for damages stemming from certain potential legal actions brought by the P&W. For fiscal year 1997, the administration proposes to continue funding this project, with a dollar-for-dollar matching requirement of the State of Rhode Island or its designee and a requirement that the P&W enter into an agreement with the Secretary to reimburse Amtrak and/or FRA up to $16,000,000 for damages stemming from certain potential legal actions brought by the P&W. The Committee is providing $10,000,000 to continue the Rhode Island rail development project. Direct Loan Financing Program ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Loan subsidy Limitation on appropriation direct loans ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Appropriations, 1996.............. ................. ................. Budget estimate, 1997............. ................. ................. House allowance................... $58,680,000 ($400,000,000) Committee recommendation.......... ................. ................. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The administration has not requested any funds under section 505 of the Rail Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976. However, the House included $58,680,000 in appropriations to subsidize loans of $400,000,000 for the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority. This large, ongoing project involves the elimination of over 200 at-grade-highway crossings along a 20-mile rail corridor in order to improve access to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The administration had requested funds for the Alameda corridor project under the Federal Highway Administration program. The Committee has directed, elsewhere in the report, that $58,680,000 provided under the State infrastructure banks program be made available for the Alameda corridor project. Grants to National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) Appropriations, 1996....................................\1\ $635,000,000 Budget estimate, 1997................................... \1\ 638,500,000 House allowance......................................... 462,000,000 Committee recommendation................................ 592,000,000 \1\ Includes $120,000,000 for mandatory passenger rail payments in fiscal year 1996 and $142,000 in fiscal year 1997. The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) was established in 1971 to preserve and improve the Nation's intercity rail passenger system. Federal assistance, in the form of operating and capital grants, has been provided since Amtrak's inception through the Department of Transportation. Over its 25-year existence, Amtrak has succeeded in vastly improving the economics of intercity rail passenger operations and in expanding the demand for and quality of service. The Committee has provided a total funding level of $592,000,000 for Amtrak. This is $130,000,000 more than the House appropriation, $46,500,000 below the administration's request, and $43,000,000 below the fiscal year 1996 Amtrak appropriation. The Committee understands that Amtrak management is concerned that it may not be able to achieve operating self- sufficiency by fiscal year 2002, unless additional capital funds are provided. Therefore, the Senate has provided Amtrak with a total of $330,000,000 more in its capital accounts than that provided by the House. The Committee allocation includes $200,000,000 for NECIP, an account zeroed by the House, and $250,000,000 for capital, which is $130,000,000 above the House appropriation. In addition, $80,000,000 has been provided to advance the high-speed trainsets and facilities project, which Amtrak estimates will significantly increase revenues to the Corporation. OPERATIONS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year House Committee 1997 request allowance recommendation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Routine operating expenses...................................... $200,000,000 $200,000,000 $200,000,000 Mandatory passenger rail payments............................... 142,000,000 142,000,000 142,000,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Committee has provided $200,000,000 for operations, the same as both the House allowance and the budget request and $63,000,000 below the enacted level. Amtrak has requested $250,000,000 for operations. Mandatory passenger rail payments.--This appropriation includes $142,000,000 for mandatory passenger rail service payments, as requested by the administration. These payments are made by Amtrak into the railroad retirement fund and the ``Railroad unemployment insurance'' account. Transition and restructuring costs.--Neither the administration nor Amtrak requested any funds for long-term transition expenses in fiscal year 1997, and the Committee has not provided any funding for such costs. In fiscal year 1996, the Committee provided $100,000,000 under this program which was used to cover operating expenses for Amtrak. General provision.--At Amtrak's request, the Committee has included a general provision which pertains to possible claims against Amtrak regarding unused tickets. CAPITAL EXPENSES The Committee has provided $250,000,000 for capital grants, $130,000,000 more than the House allocation and $46,500,000 below the administration's request. Northwest high-speed rail corridor.--The Committee expects the Corporation to proceed in fiscal year 1997 according to its capital business plan, with respect to funding its share of the costs for high-speed passenger rail equipment and maintenance facilities for this corridor. Project costs are being allocated among Amtrak and other funding partners. Pennsylvania Station redevelopment.--The high-speed trainsets being procured for use along the Northeast corridor are expected to bring 3 million more riders per year between Washington, DC, and Boston, MA. Major stations along the route have recently been improved to standards commensurate with such service except for New York's Pennsylvania Station, linchpin of the corridor and Amtrak's busiest station nationwide, which remains code-deficient and overcrowded. The current station is entirely underground. Of primary concern is vertical access to its platforms which do not lie entirely under the existing station. The platforms' western ends lie underneath the historic James A. Farley Post Office, built at the turn of the century when mail was delivered primarily by rail. Plans to expand the station would convert a portion of the Farley Building into an intermodal station, improving safety and circulation and providing significant new platform access. City, State, and private resources are to be used in conjunction with Federal funds to improve the federally owned station. The Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Corp., formed in 1995, is currently preparing a detailed cost estimate for the project. Once this cost estimate is completed, the Committee encourages Amtrak to finalize the cost-sharing agreement between the funding partners, prepare final drawings and schedules, and complete the other preconstruction activities so the project can proceed in a timely manner. FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION Summary of Fiscal Year 1997 Program The Federal Transit Administration was established as a component of the Department of Transportation by Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1968, effective July 1, 1968, which transferred most of the functions and programs under the Federal Transit Act of 1964, as amended (78 Stat. 302; 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The missions of the Federal Transit Administration are: to assist in the development of improved mass transportation facilities, equipment, techniques, and methods; to encourage the planning and establishment of urban mass transportation services needed for economical and desirable urban development; to provide mobility for transit dependents; to maximize productivity of urban transportation systems; and to provide assistance to State and local governments and their instrumentalities in financing such services and systems. Funding for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority is authorized under Public Law 101-551. The Stark- Harris authorizations have all been expended. Under the Committee recommendation, a total program level of $4,382,832,000 would be provided for the programs of the Federal Transit Administration for fiscal year 1996. This is $86,708,000 more than the budget request and $332,040,000 above the House allocation. The following table summarizes the Committee's recommendations compared to fiscal year 1996, the administration's request, and the House allowance: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1996 enacted \1\ Committee Program 1997 estimate House allowance recommendation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Administrative expenses................. $42,000,000 $43,652,000 $41,367,000 $42,147,000 Formula grants \2\...................... 2,052,925,000 2,151,972,000 2,052,925,000 2,149,185,000 Discretionary grants \3\ ............... 1,665,000,000 1,799,000,000 1,665,000,000 1,900,000,000 Transit planning and research........... 85,500,000 85,500,000 85,500,000 85,500,000 University transportation centers....... 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 Washington Metro........................ 200,000,000 200,000,000 200,000,000 200,000,000 Violent crime reduction program......... ................ 10,000,000 ................ ................ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Total............................. 4,051,425,000 4,296,124,000 4,050,792,000 4,382,832,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Excludes reductions to comply with working capital fund, awards, and administrative provisions, and the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996. \2\ Includes limitation on obligations of $1,110,000,000 in fiscal year 1996 and $1,930,850,000 in fiscal year 1997 estimate and $1,930,850,000 in Committee recommendation. \3\ Limitation on obligations. Administrative Expenses Appropriations, 1996.................................... $42,000,000 Budget estimate, 1997................................... 43,652,000 House allowance......................................... 41,367,000 Committee recommendation................................ 42,147,000 The Committee recommends a total of $42,147,000 in general funds for administrative expenses. The amount provided is $780,000 more than the House allowance and $1,505,000 less than the administration's request. The Committee agrees with the reductions made by the House, except that it has added back $500,000 for nontechnical training, $130,000 to provide for four regional community planners, and $150,000 for the Director of Communications and External Affairs and executive assistant positions. Formula Grants ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Appropriation Limitation (general fund) (trust fund) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Appropriations, 1996.............. $942,925,000 ($1,110,000,000) Budget estimate, 1997............. 221,122,000 (1,930,850,000) House allowance................... 490,000,000 (1,562,925,000) Committee recommendation.......... 218,335,000 (1,930,850,000) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Formula Grant Program has funded sections 5307, 5310(a)2, 5311, and 5336, providing grants on the basis of a formula to State and local agencies for mass transportation operating and capital expenses. The Committee recommends $2,149,185,000 for continuation of the Formula Grant Program including $115,122,428 for the section 5311 Nonurban Formula Program; $56,049,949 for the section 5310 Elderly and Disabled Program, and $1,978,012,623 for the section 5307, Urban Formula Grants Program. Urbanized areas with populations of 200,000 or more.--These areas would receive $1,778,731,872 (not including the one-half percent set-aside). The amount for each area is derived based on the bus and rail operating statistics and population factors for each area. The bus tier, which contains about 67 percent of the total funds allocates most of these funds 50 percent based on revenue vehicle miles, 25 percent based on population, and 25 percent based on population density. In the rail tier, the remaining 33 percent, most of the funds are allocated 60 percent based on revenue vehicle miles and 40 percent based on route miles. Within the bus and rail tiers there is also an incentive portion, or tier, which is based on passenger miles and operating costs. Urbanized areas under 200,000 population.--These areas would receive $189,390,688 (not including the one-half percent set-aside) to be distributed 50 percent based on population and 50 percent based on population density. Nonurbanized areas.--These areas would receive $115,122,428 under the section 5311 program. These funds are distributed based on nonurbanized area population not including the one- half percent setaside. Elderly and disabled.--The section 5310 program would receive $56,049,949. Operating assistance.--The Committee has included bill language limiting operating subsidies to $400,000,000. This is the same as the House allowance and $100,000,000 less than the administration's request. Distribution of operating assistance among urbanized areas [UZA's].--The Committee has continued language added to the bill last year to hold cuts in operating assistance for those urbanized areas [UZA's] under 200,000 in population to 25 percent below fiscal year 1995 levels, in recognition of the fact that transit operators in such areas generally depend on Federal operating assistance to meet a greater percentage of their operating budgets than operators in larger UZA's. The Committee recognizes, however, that transit operators in larger UZA's also rely on Federal operating assistance to meet a significant amount of annual operating expenses. It notes that all transit operators are struggling with increased operating costs associated with meeting Federal requirements under the Clean Air Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Federal drug and alcohol testing mandates. It also is aware that Federal operating aid was reduced by 12 percent in fiscal year 1995 and by a subsequent 44 percent in fiscal year 1996, and that further reductions may result in some combination of fare increases, service cuts, or increased support at the State and local government levels. Operating aid for larger UZA's has been frozen at the fiscal year 1996 level. Paratransit requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA].--The Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA] requires, that transit operators offer paratransit service, as well as accessible fixed route service, to persons with disabilities. The requirement to provide paratransit services to those passengers unable to use fixed-route transit service becomes effective January 26, 1997. The legislative intent of the ADA that fixed route public transit operators provide complementary paratransit services for eligible persons with disabilities did not assume the transfer to public transit operators of the financial burden of carrying persons with disabilities whose transportation costs have traditionally been funded by Department of Health and Human Services [DHHS] programs. Therefore, the Committee has an interest in ensuring that the existing human services transportation programs funded through DHHS not be eliminated or consolidated without an adequate and ongoing financial commitment by DHHS to pay for the transportation costs of their clients whether such transportation is provided by traditional human services transportation networks or by ADA complementary paratransit services. The Committee reiterates its position that, in order to most effectively implement the paratransit requirements of the ADA, the Department of Transportation should closely coordinate its efforts with those of the Department of Health and Human Services. The Committee believes that coordination of transportation for persons with disabilities, seniors, and others funded by DHHS programs or by public transit operators under their ADA complementary paratransit obligations must be planned and implemented at the State and regional levels in order to ensure cost-effective service delivery and improve access to DHHS program services. Federal guidelines to facilitate such coordination planning will provide assistance to public transit operators, community transportation providers, and human service transportation providers to achieve coordination objectives. In addition, a uniform cost accounting system is key to fostering coordination among the myriad Federal programs which fund transportation in order to streamline the payment for the administration of services funded by each program. The Committee directs the Secretary of Transportation, working with the Secretary of Health and Human Services through the DOT/DHHS Coordinating Council, to develop these guidelines for State and regional planning to achieve specific transportation coordination objectives including, but not limited to: joint identification of human service client transportation needs and the appropriate mix of transportation services to meet those needs; the expanded use of public transit services to deliver human services program transportation; and cost-sharing arrangements for DHHS program clients transported by ADA paratransit systems based on a uniform accounting system. University Transportation Centers Appropriations, 1996.................................... $6,000,000 Budget estimate, 1997................................... 6,000,000 House allowance......................................... 6,000,000 Committee recommendation 6,000,000 Section 5317(b) of title 49 U.S.C. provides for the university transportation centers program. The purpose of the university transportation centers program is to become a national resource and focal point for the support and conduct of research and training concerning the transportation of passengers and property. Transit Planning and Research Appropriations, 1996.................................... $85,500,000 Budget estimate, 1997................................... 85,500,000 House allowance......................................... 85,500,000 Committee recommendation 85,500,000 The Committee has recommended $85,500,000 for transit planning and research. This is the same as both the House allocation and the administration's request. The Committee has allocated the funds in the same manner as did the House. The separate programs combined are: the research, training, and human resources program (sections 6, 10, 11, and 20), the planning program (section 5303), and the rural transit assistance program (section 5311(b)(2)). Under the national component of the program, the Federal Transit Administration is a catalyst in the research, development, and deployment of transportation methods and technologies addressing such issues as accessibility for the disabled, air quality, and traffic congestion. Funds for the State and local component of the program will ensure that all localities have sufficient funds to improve the State and local planning process and to participate in research efforts with regional applications. The following table summarizes the Committee recommendation: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year Fiscal year 1996 program 1997 budget House Committee level estimate allowance recommendation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Metropolitan planning................................. $39,500,000 $39,500,000 $39,500,000 $39,500,000 Rural transit assistance program...................... 4,500,000 4,500,000 4,500,000 4,500,000 State planning and research program................... 8,250,000 8,250,000 8,250,000 8,250,000 Transit cooperative research program.................. 8,250,000 8,250,000 8,250,000 8,250,000 National Transit Institute............................ 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 National planning and research program................ 22,000,000 22,000,000 22,000,000 22,000,000 --------------------------------------------------------- Total........................................... 85,500,000 85,500,000 85,500,000 85,500,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Committee has provided funding for a number of important initiatives in fiscal year 1997. They are as follows: Project ACTION (accessible community transportation in our Nation)...................................................$2,000,000 Fuel cell bus technology......................................15,000,000 Computer integrated transit environment [CITME] at Greater Cleveland RTA............................................. 2,700,000 The Committee has not earmarked other projects mentioned in the House report that are not listed in this report. This action is taken without prejudice to final decisions on project funding that will be made in conference. Advanced Transportation Systems Program.--The Committee directs the FTA to continue the Advanced Transportation Systems and Electric Vehicle Technology Program established under section 6071 of title VI of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA]. The Committee is aware of the contributions to lead acid battery research and advanced alternative fuel transit development that participating advanced transportation technology consortia have made to the Advanced Transportation Systems Program. Advanced lead acid battery consortium [ALABC].--The Committee has previously expressed its strong support for the technology development and deployment program of the advanced lead acid battery consortium [ALABC], and notes that FTA has been directed to provide a total of $1,500,000 to the ALABC in Public Laws 104-19 and 104-50. The Committee understands that FTA has awarded $250,000, and is processing a further grant award in the amount of $500,000 for ALABC work in conjunction with the Santa Barbara transit system. The Committee directs the FTA to complete the award of $500,000 no later than September 30, 1996, and to award the balance of $750,000 to the ALABC no later than December 31, 1996. Fuel Cell Transit Bus Program.--The Committee directs the FTA to provide $15,000,000 to continue the advancement of the Fuel Cell Transit Bus Program. The Committee urges the FTA to work cooperatively with all parties involved in this project, to ensure an appropriate and consistent level of funding for this important new technology. Project ACTION.--The Committee provides $2,000,000 to continue Project ACTION (accessible community transportation in our Nation), which is administered by the National Easter Seal Society through a cooperative agreement with the FTA. Trust Fund Share of Transit Programs (Liquidation of Contract Authorization) (highway trust fund) Appropriations, 1996....................................($1,120,850,000) Budget estimate, 1997................................... (1,920,000,000) House allowance......................................... (1,920,000,000) Committee recommendation (1,920,000,000) Under ISTEA, Public Law 102-240, four transit accounts can be funded from the mass transit account of the highway trust fund, the general fund, or a mix of the two. In 1997, as in 1996, the Federal Transit Administration and the Committee propose funding only formula grants with both trust and general funds. Administrative expenses, university transportation centers, and planning and research will be funded only with general funding in order to simplify a complex accounting procedure. Discretionary Grants (Limitation on Obligations) (Highway Trust Fund) Appropriations, 1996....................................($1,665,000,000) Budget estimate, 1997................................... (1,799,000,000) House allowance......................................... (1,665,000,000) Committee recommendation................................ (1,900,000,000) Section 5338(b) of 49 U.S.C. authorizes discretionary grants or loans to States and local public bodies and agencies thereof to be used in financing mass transportation investments. Under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Public Law 102-240, investments may include construction of new fixed guideway systems; extensions to existing guideway systems; major bus fleet expansions; and fixed guideway expenditures for existing older systems. The Committee recommends a level of $1,900,000,000. This is $235,000,000 more than that recommended by the House and $101,000,000 above the administration's request. The following table summarizes the Committee recommendations: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year 1996 program 1997 budget House Committee level estimate allowance recommendations ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bus and bus facilities............................... 333,000 274,000 333,000 375,000 Fixed guideway modernization......................... 666,000 725,000 666,000 725,000 New systems and new extensions....................... 666,000 800,000 666,000 800,000 ---------------------------------------------------------- Total.......................................... 1,665,000 1,799,000 1,665,000 1,900,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Three-year availability of section 3 discretionary funds.-- The Committee has redistributed unallocated discretionary bus and new starts funds from projects which were funded in the fiscal year 1994 transportation appropriations bill (Public Law 103-122) and previous acts making these funds available for reallocation in fiscal year 1997. As in previous years, a general provision (sec. 317) is included which limits funding availability for these fiscal year 1997 discretionary funds to 3 years from enactment. A total of $56,956,000 has been reprogrammed to the new systems account, increasing the available funding from $800,000,000 to $856,956,000. The following amounts have been reallocated from various projects to new starts funding for fiscal year 1997: Fiscal year 1992: Detroit............................................. $4,890,000 San Jose-Gilroy..................................... 4,000,000 Fiscal year 1995: New Bedford/Fall River................ 744,000 Chicago central area circulator balances................ 47,322,000 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Total............................................. 56,956,000 Reallocation of Seattle-Tacoma Commuter Rail new starts funding.--The House reallocated unobligated fiscal year 1992 balances of $1,620,000 from the Seattle-Tacoma Commuter Rail new start account to increase the amount of available new starts funding for fiscal year 1997. However, these funds were reprogrammed during the conference on the fiscal year 1996 Transportation appropriations bill (House Report 104-286, p. 66); and subsequently, King County, WA, and its coapplicants have been administratively authorized by the Federal Transit Administration to incur costs against this money. The Committee, therefore, expects the Federal Transit Administration to release these funds for purposes consistent with the intent of the conferees, and opposes the House action reallocating these funds. Interstate compact infrastructure banks.--Provisions in this bill provide funding for a program of State infrastructure banks which will greatly enhance capital financing options for transit projects across the Nation. These innovative financing tools, including loans, will be available to transit new starts as well as other transit capital projects. bus and bus facilities Due to budget constraints, the Committee has deleted funding for many meritorious bus and bus facilities projects which were earmarked in the House report. This action was taken without prejudice to these projects. The Committee expects to give full consideration to all projects mentioned in the House and Senate reports during conference committee deliberations on the Fiscal Year 1997 Transportation Appropriations Act. The recommended amount includes the following allocations: Committee State/city and project description recommendation Arkansas: Little Rock, Central AR Transit, buses and bus loading station..................................... $2,000,000 California: Lake Tahoe, South Shore Transport., coordinated transit system.................................... 2,532,000 Los Angeles County MTA, ATTB prototype buses........ 13,100,000 Los Angeles neighborhood initiative................. 3,000,000 San Joaquin RTD downtown transit center (livable communities)...................................... 5,500,000 Solano County Transit, buses and linking express service to BART................................... 1,920,000 Thousand Oaks multimodal center..................... 600,000 Delaware: Bus facility (in New Castle County)........... 10,000,000 Florida: Miami Beach, electric battery buses................. 1,200,000 Tampa (Hillsborough area RTD), buses (HARTline)..... 5,600,000 Indiana: Indianapolis metro, new buses.................. 5,000,000 Iowa: Cedar Rapids: Hybrid electric bus consortium.................. 892,600 Surface park and ride lot....................... 897,000 Sioux City multimodal park and ride facility........ 750,000 Waterloo, intermodal bus facility................... 665,000 Kansas: Johnson City, bus maintenance center............ 4,400,000 Louisiana: Shreveport, Lafayette and New Orleans bus facilities.......................................... 7,000,000 Massachusetts: Hyannis, Cape Cod intermodal transportation center.. 6,500,000 Springfield, Union Station intermodal facility...... 750,000 Michigan: Michigan DOT ISTEA earmark for buses and related equipment......................................... 10,000,000 City of Detroit, intermodal transportation center... 10,000,000 Mississippi: Jackson: Buses........................................... 1,500,000 Downtown multimodal transit center.............. 3,500,000 Missouri: Kansas City: KCATA buses..................................... 5,300,000 Union Station intermodal........................ 13,000,000 Kansas City Trolley Corp., replacement trolleys..... 320,000 State of Missouri, buses and bus facilities......... 20,000,000 Nevada: Reno, Regional Transportation Commission buses.. 3,469,000 New Jersey: New Jersey Transit, Clean Air Act bus fleet improvements........................................ 6,000,000 New Mexico: Albuquerque URICA bus project............... 4,000,000 New York: Broome County, buses................................ 1,900,000 Chemung County, intermodal center................... 3,000,000 Long Island Bus alternative fuels fueling facilities 3,800,000 New York City, natural gas buses.................... 20,000,000 Rochester-Genessee RTA, buses....................... 3,500,000 Utica, buses, support vehicles...................... 2,400,000 Alternative bus fuels fueling facilities: Brooklyn, Bronx, and Manhattan.............................. 12,000,000 North Dakota: Bismarck and Mandan (Bis-Man Transit) intermodal center................................... 1,500,000 Ohio: Akron, diesel and CNG buses, vehicle locator system. 11,000,000 Cincinnati (southwest Ohio RTA): Buses........................................... 15,000,000 Administrative facility......................... 3,000,000 Grand River (Laketran), maintenance facility........ 1,000,000 Oregon: Eugene, Lane Transit District, buses and station.... 5,100,000 Central City streetcar.............................. 6,000,000 Hood River, buses................................... 175,000 Salem, downtown transit center...................... 3,700,000 Portland, South bus mall extension.................. 12,800,000 Wilsonville, transit vehicles....................... 250,000 Pennsylvania: Erie, intermodal complex............................ 4,000,000 Philadelphia: Alternative fueled vehicles........... 8,000,000 South Carolina: Spartanburg, intermodal facility........ 2,938,400 Texas: Brazos Valley woodlands town center project......... 2,700,000 East Texas, Liberty, Montgomery, and Polk Counties service expansion................................. 6,000,000 Galveston trolley maintenance....................... 500,000 Utah: Salt Lake City 2002 Winter Olympics: Buses and facilities............................ 11,000,000 Intermodal centers.............................. 11,000,000 Vermont: Burlington, multimodal center....................... 3,000,000 Rutland intermodal station.......................... 700,000 Urban and rural, buses and bus facilities........... 5,500,000 Virginia: Richmond, downtown intermodal station......... 20,000,000 Washington: Chelan-Douglas multimodal center--Amtrak platform... 2,000,000 Seattle, Metro/King County multimodal............... 6,000,000 Seattle/King Co. Metro, transit transfer centers.... 4,000,000 West Virginia: Charleston, renovate maintenance facility 3,180,000 Wyoming: Fremont County, Shoshone and Arapahoe Nation's buses and facility.................................. 1,773,000 Salem, OR.--The Committee directs that funds previously provided for the city of Salem, OR, may be applied to the Salem downtown transit center. Logan Transit District, UT.--The Committee notes that the Logan Transit District [LTD] plans to apply for funds in fiscal year 1997 and looks favorably upon LTD's efforts to secure discretionary bus funds. fixed guideway modernization The Committee recommends a total of $725,000,000 for the modernization of existing rail transit systems. Under ISTEA all of the funds are distributed by formula. The following table itemizes by State the fiscal year 1997 rail modernization allocations: Fixed guideway modernization apportionments Areas Apportionment Arizona: Phoenix........................................ $543,840 California: Los Angeles......................................... 8,187,646 Sacramento.......................................... 936,892 San Diego........................................... 1,930,273 San Francisco....................................... 47,144,013 San Jose............................................ 3,821,522 Colorado: Denver........................................ 428,341 Connecticut: Hartford............................................ 495,272 Southwestern Connecticut............................ 31,834,843 Delaware: Wilmington.................................... 310,626 Washington, DC.......................................... 16,847,946 Florida: Fort Lauderdale..................................... 1,126,692 Jacksonville........................................ 34,896 Miami............................................... 3,074,946 West Palm Beach..................................... 861,634 Georgia: Atlanta........................................ 6,911,566 Hawaii: Honolulu........................................ 252,354 Illinois: Chicago/Northwestern Indiana.................. 100,326,955 Louisiana: New Orleans.................................. 2,071,787 Maryland: Baltimore........................................... 2,665,108 Baltimore commuter rail............................. 12,471,130 Massachusetts: Boston.............................................. 50,136,690 Lawrence-Haverhill.................................. 472,380 Michigan: Detroit....................................... 175,326 Minnesota: Minneapolis.................................. 1,283,319 Missouri: Kansas City......................................... 19,901 St. Louis........................................... 950,072 New Jersey: Northeastern New Jersey............................. 63,352,402 Trenton............................................. 531,340 New York: Buffalo............................................. 404,344 New York............................................ 248,719,886 Ohio: Cleveland........................................... 10,484,874 Dayton.............................................. 1,629,075 Pennsylvania: Philadelphia/Southern NJ............................ 72,073,388 Pittsburgh.......................................... 14,882,066 Puerto Rico: San Juan................................... 821,459 Oregon: Portland........................................ 991,010 Rhode Island: Providence................................ 959,185 Tennessee: Chattanooga.................................. 20,200 Texas: Dallas.............................................. 287,857 Houston............................................. 2,172,061 Virginia: Norfolk....................................... 450,949 Washington: Seattle............................................. 6,040,200 Tacoma.............................................. 188,823 Wisconsin: Madison...................................... 237,411 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Total apportionment............................... 719,562,500 Section 23 set-aside.................................... 5,437,500 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Total fixed guideway.............................. 725,000,000 NEW SYSTEMS The bill includes $800,000,000, as requested in the administration budget, and $56,956,000 of reprogrammed funds, for a total of $856,956,000. These funds are available for preliminary engineering, right-of-way acquisition, project management, oversight, and construction for new systems and extensions. According to specific project needs, these funds shall also be available for preliminary stages of projects named for funding. The funds are to be distributed as follows: Alaska-Hollis to Ketchikan ferry project................ $6,390,000 Atlanta-MARTA North Line extension...................... 62,000,000 Boston-South Boston Piers Transitway.................... 30,000,000 Burlington-Charlotte, VT, commuter rail................. 2,000,000 Chicago transit improvements............................ 20,000,000 Cincinnati/northern Kentucky rail line project.......... 3,000,000 Dallas-DART north central light rail extension project.. 12,000,000 Dallas-Fort Worth RAILTRAN.............................. 18,000,000 Florida (Miami) Tri-County commuter rail................ 20,000,000 Houston-METRO regional bus plan......................... 24,000,000 Jackson, Mississippi intermodal corridor................ 7,400,000 Kansas City, MO southtown corridor project.............. 3,600,000 Little Rock, AR, Junction Bridge........................ 6,000,000 Los Angeles metro rail MOS-3............................ 55,000,000 Maryland central corridor LRT........................... 5,000,000 Maryland commuter rail [MARC]........................... 50,000,000 Memphis, TN, regional rail plan......................... 6,400,000 Metro-Dade Transit east-west corridor, Florida.......... 5,000,000 Morgantown, WV, train control system.................... 4,240,000 New Jersey urban core/Secaucus.......................... 105,530,000 New Jersey urban core/Hudson-Bergen..................... 10,000,000 New Orleans Canal Street corridor....................... 10,000,000 New York 63d Street/Queens connector.................... 35,020,000 Oklahoma City, MAPS corridors transit system............ 10,000,000 Orlando-Lynx light rail project......................... 2,000,000 Pittsburgh busway projects.............................. 15,100,000 Portland Westside LRT project........................... 138,000,000 Portland South/North light rail transit................. 6,000,000 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, regional transit plan................................................ 5,000,000 Sacramento.............................................. 7,000,000 Salt Lake City LRT...................................... 58,000,000 San Francisco BART Airport/Tasman extensions............ 20,000,000 Seattle-Renton-Tacoma commuter rail..................... 5,000,000 St. Louis Metrolink..................................... 30,000,000 St. Louis Metrolink/St. Clair County, IL, extension..... 45,000,000 Tampa-Lakeland commuter rail............................ 2,000,000 Virginia Rail Express Richmond to Washington commuter rail project........................................ 8,000,000 Whitehall Ferry Terminal, New York...................... 5,000,000 PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS Alaska-Hollis to Ketchikan ferry project.--The Committee recommends $6,390,000 for the Alaska-Hollis to Ketchikan ferry project in southeast Alaska. This project will improve ferry service to provide vital transportation for residents of this remote area, as well as for tourists. The project includes building a passenger/vehicle ferry to operate year-round, making two round trips per day on the 38-nautical mile route between Hollis and Ketchikan, AK. The House provided no funds for this project. Atlanta-MARTA North Line extension.--The Committee recommends $62,000,000 for the Atlanta-MARTA North Line extension project. The House provided $66,820,000 for this project. This 1.9-mile, two-station extension from the Dunwoody station to North Springs is part of the larger 9 mile, five station North Line extension to the MARTA heavy rail rapid transit system. The segment from Buckhead to Dunwoody opened in June 1996. The North Line extension will serve the rapidly growing area north of Atlanta, and will connect this area with the rest of the region by providing better transit service for both commuters and inner-city residents. The local share commitment for the federally funded portion of this extension is 20 percent. The cost-effectiveness index is $5 per new passenger trip. FTA has determined that the grantee has the financial capacity to build and operate this project. An FFGA for the Dunwoody to North Springs segment was issued in December 1994 which fulfilled the requirements of section 3035(tt) of ISTEA. To date, $29,457,400 has been obligated, as has the $10,000,000 provided in pre-ISTEA funds. No funds were appropriated for this project in fiscal year 1994 or fiscal year 1995. However, $41,900,252 was appropriated in fiscal year 1996. The FFGA funding schedule provides for $66,820,000 in fiscal year 1997 new starts funds, with the remaining $156,830,000 provided over fiscal years 1998-2001. To date, $131,945,784 has been obligated to the entire project with only the fiscal year 1996 appropriation remaining unobligated. The 3.1-mile federally funded segment of the North Line extension (Medical Center to North Springs) received an ISTEA earmark of $329,000,000. Boston-South Boston Piers Transitway MOS-2.--The Committee recommends $30,000,000 for the South Boston Piers Transitway project. The House provided $40,181,000 for this project. This project consists of a 1-mile bus tunnel connecting South Station to the World Trade Center and Fan Pier. The tunnel will be used by electric trolleybuses and its construction is timed to coincide with the central artery/tunnel highway project now underway. The project is in the final design stage. The local share commitment to this project is 20 percent. The cost- effectiveness index ranges from $9-$16 per new passenger trip. FTA has determined that the grantee has the financial capacity to build and operate this project. An FFGA was issued in November 1994, in the amount of $330,730,000; this includes the $92,460,000 provided in fiscal year 1995 and prior years. The project received an appropriation of $19,818,888 in fiscal year 1996. The FFGA funding schedule provides for $53,720,000 in fiscal year 1997. The remaining $164,600,000 would be provided over the course of fiscal years 1998-2001. To date, $92,458,125 has been obligated to the project with only the fiscal year 1996 appropriation remaining unobligated. This project received an ISTEA earmark of $278,000,000. Burlington-Charlotte, VT, commuter rail.--The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the Federal share of capital improvements for the Burlington-Charlotte commuter rail project. The House provided no funds for this project. These funds will be used for upgrades to the Vermont Railway including track, signal, at grade crossing, and drainage improvements. The terminus in Charlotte will be located near Ferry Road. In Burlington, the terminus would be the newly developed Main Street Landing/Union Station site. The project will include the construction of three stations, in addition to Union Station, with park-and-ride lots and integrated feeder bus service. The State of Vermont has committed to financing all required operating costs associated with this commuter rail project. The Vermont Agency on Transportation estimates the cost of the commuter rail alternative to be $7,700,000. The major investment study [MIS] has been completed and a public hearing on the preferred alternative has been held. The preferred alternative is a combination of highway improvements, passenger rail, and enhanced bus service. The MIS identifies a cost-effectiveness index of $8 per new passenger trip. The environmental assessment is currently being finalized. FTA has not rated the financial plan. A total of $5,582,090 was appropriated for this project in fiscal year 1996, completing the Federal funding requirement. These moneys have not yet been obligated. This project was not authorized in ISTEA. Chicago transit improvements.--The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for transit improvements in the city of Chicago. The House provided $25,000,000 for transit improvements for the city of Chicago to improve congestion and circulation in the central business district. These projects include renovations of existing subway stations, platform rehabilitation, and installing a cab signal system. These improvements are to take the place of the planned Chicago circulator project, which was planned as a multilegged light rail transit system within downtown Chicago. The cost of constructing the entire light rail project was estimated to be $775,000,000 (escalated dollars). Ridership was projected to be about 103,400 trips per day. On October 24, 1995, the executive board of the Chicago area circulator voted unanimously to recommend to the mayor and the city council the termination of the project. On October 26, 1995, city staff notified FTA that the project had been terminated. A letter confirming this decision has been received by the city. FTA is currently working with the city to achieve final close out of the project, and funds previously appropriated for the circulator project have been reprogrammed to other transit new starts. Cincinnati/northern Kentucky rail line project.--The Committee recommends $3,000,000 for this project, the same amount as provided by the House. The corridor extends from the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport through downtown Cincinnati to Paramount King's Island Amusement Park in Warren County, OH. This 33-mile corridor parallels I-71 in a generally northeast direction, and so is referred to as the Northeast corridor. The capital cost of the rail alternative is $800,000,000. The project is currently in the system planning studies phase. For fiscal years 1994 through 1996, Congress has appropriated $3,518,856 for the corridor. Dallas-DART north central light rail extension project.-- The Committee recommends $12,000,000 for the Dallas-DART north central light rail extension project. The House provided $10,000,000 for this project. This project is a 11.4-mile, six- station, $354,300,000 LRT extension to Plano. The southern 6.8 miles, from Park Lane to Richardson Transit Center, would be double tracked. The northern 5.5 miles would be single track initially with limited station development. Dallas area rapid transit has completed a major investment study [MIS] and the preferred alternative was selected in September 1994. The project is now in the preliminary engineering phase. A draft EIS should be ready for circulation in the summer of 1996. The local share commitment to this project is 50 percent. The cost- effectiveness index is $9 per new passenger trip. FTA has assigned a financial rating of high to this project. Through fiscal year 1996, Congress has appropriated $5,445,191 for this project. To date, $1,504,800 have been obligated with $3,940,391 in prior-year appropriations remaining unobligated. The project is not authorized in ISTEA. Dallas-Fort Worth RAILTRAN.--The Committee recommends $18,000,000 for the Dallas-Fort Worth RAILTRAN project. The House provided $12,500,000 for this project. This project, scheduled to open in July 1999, consists of commuter rail service over 25 miles of track from South Irving to Fort Worth. The project includes service to the Fort Worth Intermodal Transportation Center. The project is in the preliminary engineering stage. The cost-effectiveness index is $8 per new passenger trip. FTA has assigned a financial rating of medium to the project. The capital costs of phases one and two are $68,200,000 and $129,010,000 respectively. Phase one of the project is fully funded with local (60 percent), section 5307 (25 percent) and CMAQ funds (15 percent), and no section 5309 funds. The capital funding plan for phase two assumes funding from section 5309 (46 percent), CMAQ funds (15 percent), highway demonstration funds (16 percent), and local funds (23 percent). Through fiscal year 1996, Congress has appropriated $11,385,383 for this project. To date, $2,480,000,000 has been obligated with $8,905,383 of prior-year appropriations remaining unobligated. The project received an ISTEA earmark of $5,680,000. Florida (Miami) Tri-County commuter rail.--The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for the Tri-County commuter rail project. The House provided $9,000,000 for this project. The Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority (Tri-Rail) operates a 67- mile commuter rail system connecting Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties. Tri-Rail's short-range program includes the addition of a second track and rehabilitation of the signal system. These improvements will reduce conflicts with Amtrak and CSX freight trains. The project is in the final design stage. Through fiscal year 1996, Congress appropriated $34,380,000 in section 5309 new starts funds for Tri-Rail improvements. To date, $24,500,000 has been obligated to the project, with the fiscal year 1996 appropriation of $9,880,000,000 remaining unobligated. Information concerning the local share commitment to the program, cost-effectiveness index, and financial plan has not been finalized. The estimated total cost of the project is $428,300,000. Houston-metro regional bus plan.--The Committee recommends $24,000,000 for the Houston-metro regional bus plan. The House provided $40,590,000 for this project, the same as the administration's request. This $625,000,000 plan, developed by Houston metro, consists of a package of major improvements to the region's existing bus system. It includes major service expansions in most of the region, new and extended HOV (high- occupancy vehicle) facilities and ramps, several transit centers and park-and-ride lots, and supporting facilities. The individual elements of the plan are in various stages of development, from preliminary engineering to construction. The local share commitment to this project is 20 percent. The cost- effectiveness index is $3 per new passenger trip. FTA has determined that the grantee has the financial capacity to build and operate this project. An FFGA was issued for this project on December 30, 1994, which fulfilled the requirements of section 3035(uu) of ISTEA. A total of $22,360,000 was provided to this project in FTA's fiscal year 1996 appropriation. An additional $118,590,000 in ISTEA funds was earmarked in fiscal year 1994 and prior years, and $146,070,000 was provided in pre-ISTEA budgets; all of these funds have been obligated. The FFGA funding schedule for this project provides for $40,590,000 in fiscal year 1997 new starts funds, with the remaining $172,390,000 needed to complete the project provided in fiscal years 1998-2000. To date, $264,660,000 has been obligated to the project with only the fiscal year 1996 appropriation remaining unobligated. The project received an ISTEA earmark of $500,000,000. Jackson, MS, intermodal corridor.--The Committee recommends $7,400,000 for the Jackson, MS, intermodal corridor project. The funds provided are for right-of-way acquisition, design, and reconstruction of existing rail viaducts to provide access to the downtown multimodal transit corridor. Kansas City, MO, Southtown corridor project.--The Committee recommends $3,600,000 for the Kansas City Southtown corridor project. The House provided $1,500,000 for this project. The Kansas City Area Transportation Authority [KCATA] completed a major investment study [MIS] in the Southtown corridor and has entered P.E. The corridor extends from the riverfront and downtown Kansas City south to 85th Street. The locally preferred alternative [LPA] consists of a 15.2-mile light rail line connecting the downtown Rivermarket area with the Country Club Plaza south of the downtown. From the plaza, the light rail project splits into two branches; the east branch serving the Watkins Drive corridor to 75th Street; and the west branch serving the Country Club corridor to 85th Street. The cost- effectiveness index is $15 per new passenger trip. The local share commitment to this project is 25 percent. Through fiscal year 1996, all available funds remaining from a prior appropriation to this project have been obligated ($1,040,000). This project received an ISTEA earmark of $5,900,000. Little Rock, AR, Junction Bridge project.--The Committee has provided $6,000,000 for the Junction Bridge project in Little Rock, AR. The House provided no funding for this project. The project will upgrade the track and provide the equipment necessary to use Junction Bridge in Little Rock for passenger rail service. The bridge is in close proximity to riverfront developments, and approaches to the bridge are adjacent to the arena property. The funding provided will purchase rail cars, track upgrade, passenger platform, and right-of-way acquisition. Los Angeles.--The Committee recommends $55,000,000 for the Federal share of MOS-3 (minimum operable segment 3) of the Metro Rail Red Line project in Los Angeles. The House provided $90,000,000 for this project. The first segment, MOS-1, opened for revenue service in January 1993. MOS-2 is currently under construction (with a 2-mile, three-station segment to Wilshire and Western to open in July 1996), and the FFGA has been fulfilled. In May 1993, an FFGA was issued to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority [LACMTA] for MOS- 3. ISTEA defined MOS-3 to include three smaller segments: the north Hollywood segment presently under construction, and the MidCity and East Side extensions which are undergoing final design. Total new start funding for the MidCity, north Hollywood, and East Side phase 1 segments are estimated to be $1,416,490,000. The local share commitment to this project is 70 percent. ISTEA authorized $695,000,000, plus $535,000,000 in advanced construction authority. Through fiscal year 1996 and prior years, $440,710,000 was appropriated for MOS-3. Funding in the amount of $158,860,000 is recommended in fiscal year 1997 under the FFGA funding schedule, with the remaining $816,920,000 to be provided over the course of fiscal years 1998-2002. A total of $356,740,000 has been obligated to date with only the fiscal year 1996 appropriation of $83,980,000 remaining unobligated. Maryland central corridor LRT.--The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the central corridor LRT extensions. The House provided $10,260,000 for the project, the same as the administration's request. The Mass Transportation Administration of Maryland has constructed, using State and local funds, a 22.5-mile light rail transit line along existing railroad right-of-way from Glen Burnie through Baltimore to Timonium. The Federal project consists of a 5-mile extension of the light rail system from Timonium to Hunt Valley, a 2-mile branch off the main line to Baltimore-Washington International Airport, and a 0.25-mile spur from the main line to Penn Station. The grantee has signed a design-build contract to complete the LRT extensions. The local share commitment to this project is 20 percent. However, if this investment is viewed in the context of the complete system, the overall local share commitment is 82 percent. The cost-effectiveness index is $8 per new passenger trip. The total cost of the three extensions of the project is estimated to be $106,340,000. Section 3035(nn) of ISTEA directs FTA to sign a multiyear grant agreement with the MTA to provide not less than $60,000,000 in new starts funds. An FFGA in the amount of $84,900,000 was signed for the three extensions. Through fiscal year 1996, $62,380,000 has been appropriated with an additional $12,300,000 in prior-year deobligated funds also applied to the project in fiscal year 1996. To date, FTA has obligated $74,640,000 (including $12,300,000 in deobligated funds) to the project with no prior-year appropriations remaining unobligated. Maryland commuter rail [MARC].--The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for the MARC commuter rail project. The House provided $27,000,000 for these commuter rail extension projects. Planned system extensions would provide service to Washington, DC, from both Waldorf and Frederick, MD. FTA has provided planning funds to the Tri-County Council for Southern Maryland for a major investment study [MIS] to evaluate transit alternatives in the Waldorf area. The MIS is expected to be completed in late 1996. The extension of MARC service to Frederick consists of a 13.5-mile line and will operate on existing CSX transportation rail right-of-way. The MARC program also includes new equipment and station improvements. The local share commitment to this project is 20 percent. FTA has determined that the grantee has the financial capacity to build and operate the Frederick project and the new equipment and station improvements. An FFGA was issued for the Frederick extension and capital improvement projects in June 1995 for $105,250,000, which includes $13,900,000 previously approved under the first increment of funding for the project. Through fiscal year 1996, Congress has appropriated $23,770,000 applied to the FFGA for this project. The FFGA funding schedule calls for $81,480,000 in new starts funding in fiscal years 1997-98. To date, $13,890,000 has been obligated to the project with only the fiscal year 1996 appropriation of $9,880,000 remaining unobligated. This project received an ISTEA earmark of $160,000,000. Memphis, TN regional rail plan.--The Committee recommends $6,400,000 for the Memphis Medical Center study. The House provided $2,000,000 for this project. The Memphis Area Transit Authority [MATA] currently operates the 2.2-mile Main Street trolley, a vintage rail trolley line in downtown Memphis. MATA is studying alternatives, including a light rail line, connecting downtown and the medical center--the two largest employment centers in the Memphis area. MATA is also looking at another extension of the Main Street trolley via the Riverfront loop and examining an additional corridor to gauge potential for transit-oriented solutions. To date, Congress has appropriated $1,730,000 for the Memphis regional rail plan, of which $500,000 has been obligated. Only the fiscal year 1996 appropriation ($1,230,000) remains to be obligated. Metro-Dade Transit east-west corridor, Florida.--The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the Metro-Dade Transit east-west corridor study. The House provided no funding for this project. Morgantown Personal Rapid Transit [MPRT], West Virginia.-- The Committee has provided $4,240,000 for the replacement of the computerized train control system at the Morgantown Personal Rapid Transit system in Morgantown, WV. The MPRT was designed and built at a cost of $170,000,000, 80 percent of which was funded through section 3 transit assistance. New Jersey urban core.--The Committee recommends $115,530,000 for the New Jersey urban core project, and directs that $105,530,000 shall go toward the Secaucus transfer and $10,000,000 shall go toward the Hudson-Bergen light rail line. The House provided a total of $115,530,000, the same as the administration's request, with $10,000,000 for the Hudson- Bergen line and $105,530,000 for the Secaucus transfer. The urban core project consists of a number of rail improvements designed to improve mobility in northern New Jersey, and consists of the following segments: Secaucus transfer; Kearney connection, Hudson-Bergen line; Newark Airport-Elizabeth transit link; Northeast corridor signal system; a rail connection between Penn Station, Newark, and Broad Street Station, Newark; and improvements to New York Penn Station. Section 3031 of ISTEA directs FTA to sign an FFGA for those elements of the New Jersey urban core program of projects which can be fully funded in fiscal years 1992 through 1997. The local financial commitment is accounted for through the ISTEA toll revenue credit provision. ISTEA earmarked $634,400,000 for the entire urban core program of projects. An FFGA was issued for the Secaucus transfer project in December 1994 to provide a total of $444,250,000 through fiscal year 1998, including funds provided in prior years. The Secaucus transfer project consists of a three-level transfer station allowing commuters on the Main line, Bergen County line, Pascack Valley line, and Port Jervis line to transfer to Northeast corridor commuter trains destined to Penn Station in midtown Manhattan or Penn Station in Newark. The project is currently under construction. The Secaucus transfer project received an appropriation of $79,290,000 in fiscal year 1996. The project's FFGA funding schedule calls for $105,530,000 in new starts funding in fiscal year 1997 with a final $26,260,000 in fiscal year 1998. The administration has also announced plans to negotiate an FFGA for $515,000,000 for the initial operating segment (10 miles) of the Hudson-Bergen light rail project. The complete project is a 20.5-mile, 33-station at-grade LRT line from the Vince Lombardi park-and-ride lot through Hoboken and Jersey City to Route 440 in southwest Jersey City. The 10-mile initial operating segment is in preliminary engineering. The cost- effectiveness index is $5 per new passenger trip. The $694,000,000 Newark-Elizabeth light rail project, an 8-mile, 15-station light rail transit line linking the cities of Newark and Elizabeth and Newark International Airport, is in preliminary engineering. The cost-effectiveness index is $5 per new passenger trip. Through fiscal year 1995, Congress has appropriated a total of $356,000,000 to New Jersey urban core projects. To date, $233,180,000 has been obligated to the Secaucus transfer project with only the fiscal year 1996 appropriation ($79,290,000) remaining unobligated; $108,990,000 has been obligated to the Hudson-Bergen project with no prior- year earmarks remaining unobligated; $1,800,000 has been obligated to the Penn Station, NY, project with no prior-year appropriations remaining unobligated; and $11,900,000 has been obligated to the Newark-Elizabeth project with no prior-year appropriations remaining unobligated. New Orleans Canal Street corridor.--The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the New Orleans Canal Street corridor project. The House provided $8,000,000 for this project. New Orleans Regional Transit Authority [RTA] completed a major investment study in March 1995, which evaluated transit alternatives on the 4.4-mile Canal Street corridor. In September 1995, FTA approved the initiation of preliminary engineering and the draft EIS. The locally preferred alternative follows the current Canal Cemeteries bus route from the Mississippi River to City Park Avenue. An additional leg of the route would connect Canal Street with the Union Passenger Terminal and possibly a parking area for proposed riverboat casinos. Through fiscal year 1996, Congress has appropriated $18,440,000 for this project. To date, $5,760,000 has been obligated with $12,680,000 in prior-year appropriations remaining unobligated. This project received an ISTEA earmark of $4,800,000. New York 63d Street/Queens connector.--The Committee recommends $35,020,000 for the Queens Boulevard/63d Street connection project. The House provided $35,020,000 for this project, the same as the administration's request. This \1/3\- mile tunnel would relieve overcrowding on the Queens Boulevard subway lines by diverting service to the 63d Street Tunnel from the 53d Street Tunnel bottleneck. The total cost of the project is estimated to be $645,000,000. The extension is currently under construction and is expected to be completed in 2001. The local share commitment to this project is 49 percent. The cost- effectiveness index is $5 per hour of travel time savings. FTA has determined that the grantee has the financial capacity to build and operate this project. Section 3033 of ISTEA directs FTA to sign a multiyear grant agreement with the New York City Transit Authority in the amount of $306,100,000 for the elements that can be fully funded in fiscal years 1992 through 1996. A FFGA for that amount has been issued for the Queens Boulevard project. Through fiscal year 1996, Congress has appropriated $271,080,000 for this project, all of which has been obligated to the project. The FFGA calls for $35,020,000 in new starts funding in fiscal year 1997 to complete the Federal commitment. Oklahoma City, MAPS corridor transit system.--The Committee has provided $10,000,000 for the Oklahoma City metropolitan area projects [MAPS] rail trolley system. The system is estimated to cost about $22,000,000 and is an integral component of the city's $285,000,000 locally funded MAPS program. Project sponsors propose a 60-percent Federal/40- percent local match. Orlando-Lynx light rail project.--The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the Orlando, FL, Lynx light rail project. The House provided $2,000,000 for this project, which is currently under development. Pittsburgh Airport busway.--The Committee recommends $15,100,000 for the airport busway project. The House provided no funding for this project. The Port Authority (PATransit) is constructing a 20-mile busway in the airport corridor between downtown Pittsburgh and the Greater Pittsburgh International Airport. Phase 1 of the project is a 7-mile busway from Carnegie to downtown Pittsburgh. Phase 1 also includes a 1.1- mile HOV facility comprised of a rehabilitated Wabash Tunnel and a new bridge across the Monongahela River. In the remaining 12 miles of the corridor, from Carnegie to the airport, buses will operate in mixed traffic on the relatively uncongested Parkway West (I-279). Phase 1 is estimated to cost $326,800,000. The busway project is presently under construction. The local share commitment to the project is 21 percent. The cost-effectiveness index is $4 per new passenger trip. FTA has determined that the grantee has the financial capacity to build and operate this project. An FFGA was issued for this project in October 1994. The FFGA commits $121,000,000 in section 5309 new start funds, $10,000,000 in section 5309 bus funds, $76,500,000 in CMAQ funds and $49,300,000 from highway funding sources. Through fiscal year 1996, Congress appropriated $98,260,000 in new start funds for the project with an additional $22,740,000 in prior-year deobligated funds also applied to the project in fiscal year 1996. With these additional funds, the FFGA funding commitment for this project has now been completed. New starts funds totaling $121,000,000 have been obligated to the project with no prior-year appropriations remaining unobligated. Portland Westside LRT project.--The Committee recommends $138,000,000 for the Portland Westside LRT project. The House provided $90,000,000 for this project. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (Tri-Met) is building a $910,000,000 light rail transit extension from downtown Portland, west through Beaverton, to a terminus in downtown Hillsboro. In downtown Portland, the 18-mile extension will connect to the existing Banfield LRT line (MAX) that operates between Portland and Gresham. The project is now under construction. The local share commitment to this project is 27 percent. The cost-effectiveness index is $16 per new passenger trip. In September 1992, FTA and Tri-Met entered into a full funding grant agreement [FFGA] for the 12-mile segment from downtown Portland to 185th Avenue. The section 5309 new start share for this segment was $516,000,000. The FFGA was amended in 1994 to add the 6.2-mile Hillsboro extension, bringing the total section 5309 share to $590,000,000. FTA formula and flexible funds totaling $74,000,000 are also being applied to this project. Through fiscal year 1996, Congress has appropriated $393,250,000 in new start funds. To date, all appropriated funds has been obligated with no prior-year appropriations remaining unobligated. The Committee intends this appropriation partially to address project progress needs that have been delayed due to the project's absorption of costs associated with tunneling and low floor cars. The Committee also has included a general provision to assure that project costs include items associated with tunneling, the introduction of low-floor light rail cars, project elements delayed because of premium costs for those cars, and for other necessary costs. Portland South/North light rail transit.--The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for the Portland South/North LRT. The South/North light rail transit project is the third link in Portland, Oregon's regional light rail transit [LRT] system connecting the already complete Eastside (Banfield) LRT line and the Westside/Hillsboro line currently under construction. Portland area residents overwhelmingly passed a bond measure in 1994 to provide up to $475,000,000 of local matching funds for the project. Additionally, the Oregon Legislature has approved $375,000,000 of State lottery funds for the South/North LRT line. Research Triangle Park regional transit plan.--The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the Research Triangle Park transit plan in Raleigh-Durham, NC. The House provides no funding for this project. Sacramento.--The Committee recommends $7,000,000 for the Sacramento south corridor project. The House provided $6,000,000 for this extension project. The Sacramento Regional Transit District [RTD] is proposing a 6.3-mile, $220,300,000, LRT line on the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way. This will be phase I of a planned 11.3-mile extension in the south Sacramento corridor. The local share commitment to this project is 53 percent. The cost-effectiveness index is $6 per new passenger trip. FTA has rated the capital finance plan for phase I as high. The administration has announced plans to negotiate an FFGA with Sacramento to provide a commitment of $100,000,000 in new starts funds to construct the 6.3-mile extension. Through fiscal year 1996, $3,960,000 has been appropriated for this project. To date, $1,980,000 has been obligated to the project, with only the fiscal year 1996 appropriation remaining unobligated. ISTEA authorized $26,000,000 for this project. Salt Lake City LRT.--The Committee recommends $58,000,000 for the Salt Lake City south LRT project. The House provided $20,000,000 for this project, and included bill language stipulating that not less than $10,000,000 of that amount shall be for related high occupancy vehicle and intermodal design costs. The Committee has deleted that restriction from the bill. Utah Transit Authority [UTA] plans to construct a 15-mile light rail transit [LRT] line from downtown Salt Lake City to suburban areas to the south. The LRT line would operate at- grade on city streets in the downtown and utilize a railroad right-of-way already owned by UTA to the south of downtown. The project is currently in the final design stage. The local share commitment to this project is 20 percent. The cost- effectiveness index is $4 per new passenger trip. FTA has negotiated an FFGA with UTA committing $246,000,000 in new starts funds to the project. Total cost of the project is $312,500,000. Through fiscal year 1996, a total of $38,640,000 has been appropriated by Congress to UTA (including $15,520,000 in pre-ISTEA funds), of which $32,040,000 has been included in the FFGA. To date, $22,390,000 has been obligated to this project pursuant to the FFGA with only the fiscal year 1996 appropriation ($9,640,000) remaining unobligated. This project received an ISTEA earmark of $131,000,000. San Francisco BART Airport/Tasman extensions.--The Committee recommends a total of $20,000,000 for the San Francisco BART Airport/Tasman extensions. The House provided $35,000,000 for the two San Francisco projects. The administration had requested $51,070,000 for the San Francisco International Airport extension and $10,000,000 for the San Jose Tasman west light rail extension, for a total of $61,070,000. BART, in conjunction with the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans), plans to build a 7.5-mile, four- station BART extension from Colma Station to Millbrae with an aerial station at the planned international terminal at San Francisco International Airport. FTA has announced plans to negotiate a FFGA with BART to commit $750,000,000 toward construction of the proposed extension. The project is now in the preliminary engineering stage. The locally preferred alternative is estimated to cost $1,110,000,000. The cost-effectiveness index is $20 per new passenger trip for the locally preferred alternative. The Tasman project has been divided into two phases in light of the court decision invalidating a countywide tax which would have provided the local share for the entire project. The initial phase, Tasman west, comprises the western portion of the original project and measures 7.6 miles in length, connecting the northern terminus of the existing Guadalupe light rail system with the CalTrain Commuter Rail Station at Mountain View. FTA entered into a FFGA with Santa Clara County to provide an additional $90,000,000 in the out-years for the initial phase. Preliminary engineering on the full system extension was completed in August 1992, the final EIS was approved in December 1992, and final design was started in May 1993. Environmental clearance for the initial phasing of the project was received in March 1996. The California Transportation Commission has confirmed the State share for the new first phase and the local funding was approved by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission [MTC] at the regional level. The cost-effectiveness index for the Tasman project is $18 per new passenger trip. Overall, $215,280,000 of the $512,750,000 authorized by ISTEA in section 5309 new starts funds for the period fiscal years 1992-97 has been appropriated by Congress for the San Francisco Bay region through fiscal year 1996. Consistent with the ISTEA legislation, the MTC has allocated these funds among the Colma BART extension, BART airport project and Tasman LRT project and obligated $172,200,000 to date, including $55,900,000 to Colma, $55,500,000 to the airport extension and $60,750,000,000 to the Tasman project. A $32,000,000 allocation of unobligated appropriations to Tasman, and the fiscal year 1996 and prior- year unobligated appropriations for the BART Airport extension ($11,115,051) have not yet been obligated. The Committee believes that BART has diligently made progress toward addressing the cost, environmental, and financing issues raised in last year's conference report; however, the Committee believes that significant problems remain and must be resolved before a long-term Federal funding commitment for the project shall be made. GAO indicates that the current cost estimate relies upon speculative savings from the so-called turnkey approach, it ignores escalation, and it includes inadequate mitigation costs. Turnkey projects are supposed to move forward quickly and save money. Clearly, the uncertainty surrounding both the amount and the source of this project's local funding, as well as delays in its anticipated Federal funding will cause finance charges to increase and make any cost savings highly unlikely. As a result, BART's cost estimates unrealistically understate the real project cost. Its financing plan depends upon high appropriations in the out- years that are most uncertain. Should these appropriations fail to be made, the financing costs will further increase. Since all local agencies have capped their contributions to the project, there are no local sources of funds for cost increases. Further, the Committee is concerned that BART still has not identified the particular activities on which airport funds will be spent and has not satisfied legitimate concerns that those expenditures might improperly divert airport revenue from airport uses. Three local organizations have announced their intention to challenge the project under the California Environmental Quality Act, and suits under Federal environmental laws are also likely. In addition, a group of local officials has formally commenced the California initiative process to place the issue of whether BART goes to Millbrae on the ballot. In light of the extensive commitments of Federal funds in existing full funding grant agreements for other new starts projects, the Committee believes that it would be inadvisable to execute a long-term commitment for a project of this scope until the availability of adequate funds to cover costs increases is demonstrated and the remainder of these issues are resolved. The Committee encourages the Federal Transit Administration to continue to work with BART to develop a project and a financing plan that are appropriate for a full funding grant agreement, but directs the FTA not to execute a full funding grant agreement or to issue a letter of no prejudice for this project until BART has met all local funding commitment criteria of 49 U.S.C. section 5309(e), including the demonstration of adequate funds to cover cost increases and to prevent deterioration of other services. As part of this process, the FTA is directed to require BART and the airport to identify the particular activities on which airport funds are to be spent, and to obtain FAA approval of such expenditures. Further, the Committee directs the FTA not to execute a full funding grant agreement or to issue a letter of no prejudice for this project until all litigation regarding the project has been resolved and the previously announced initiative has been submitted to the San Mateo County voters on the next general election ballot or the time for qualifying the initiative for such ballot has expired. Finally, the Committee reiterates its firm direction to the FTA that the FTA notify the Committee 60 days prior to the issuance of a full funding grant agreement that each of the Committee concerns noted in this report and House Report 104-286 have been resolved. Seattle-Renton-Tacoma commuter rail.--The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the Seattle-Renton-Tacoma commuter rail project. The House provided no funding for this project. The three county Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority [RTA] Board has adopted a revised master plan for transit in light of voter rejection of a $6,700,000,000 proposal. The new plan, while scaled down and valued at $3,500,000,000 in proposed transportation improvements, includes substantial commuter rail service in the region (principally between Seattle and Tacoma) as well as revised LRT and expanded bus service. A major investment study is currently underway. To date, $1,880,000 has been obligated with $3,950,000 in prior- year appropriations remaining available and unobligated. No appropriation was made to the project in fiscal year 1996. This project received an ISTEA earmark of $25,000,000. St. Louis Metrolink.--The Committee has provided $30,000,000 for metrolink for light rail cars and transit enhancements that will increase safety and improve service. Metrolink's ridership averages 40,000 daily. The additional cars will reduce service time and help maintain train schedules. St. Louis Metrolink (St. Clair County, IL) corridor.--The Committee recommends $45,000,000 for the St. Clair County corridor LRT. The House provided $20,000,000 for this project, the same as the administration's request. The East-West Gateway Coordinating Council [EWGCC] has completed a major investment study of transit alternatives for the corridor between downtown East St. Louis, IL, and the Mid-America Airport in St. Clair County. The selected alternative is a 27-mile LRT extension with a capital cost of $431,500,000. The administration has announced plans to negotiate an FFGA for the initial segment of this alternative, terminating at Belleville. The Federal commitment has been set at $236,000,000. The local share commitment to this project is 20 percent, and a medium/high rating for financial capacity has been assigned by FTA. The cost-effectiveness index is $23 per new passenger trip for the full 27 mile project. Through fiscal year 1996, $16,400,000 has been appropriated to this project. To date, $8,490,000 has been obligated and $7,930,000 remains unobligated. This project is not authorized in ISTEA. Tampa-Lakeland commuter rail.--The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the Tampa-Lakeland commuter rail project. The House provided $2,000,000 for this project. The Tampa Commuter Rail Authority is considering the establishment of transit service in a 32-mile corridor between Lakeland and Tampa, FL. One alternative is commuter rail on an existing freight line. Two rail studies have recently been completed: a feasibility study looking at system design, operational characteristics, and cost; and a study identifying public support for such a system. The Tampa Commuter Rail Authority will be completing a major investment study in late 1996 to develop information on transit alternatives in the corridor. Virginia Rail Express Richmond to Washington commuter rail project.--The Committee recommends $8,000,000 for the Quantico Creek bridge for the Virginia Rail Express [VRE] Richmond to Washington commuter rail project. The House provided no funding for this project, which is in the development stage. Whitehall Ferry Terminal, New York.--The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the Whitehall Ferry Terminal study. The House provided $2,500,000 for this project. The New York City Economic Development Corp. and the New York City Department of Transportation have proposed the redesign and reconstruction of the Staten Island Ferry's Whitehall terminal in downtown Manhattan. The terminal was largely destroyed by fire in 1991 and has been operating out of interim facilities since then. Mass Transit Capital Fund (Liquidation of Contract Authorization) (Highway Trust Fund) Appropriations, 1996....................................($2,375,000,000) Budget estimate, 1997................................... (2,000,000,000) House allowance......................................... (2,000,000,000) Committee recommendation (2,300,000,000) The bill includes $2,300,000,000 to liquidate obligations incurred under contract authority provided in section 21 of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended. Washington Metro Appropriations, 1996.................................... $200,000,000 Budget estimate, 1997................................... 200,000,000 House allowance......................................... 200,000,000 Committee recommendation 200,000,000 Public Law 96-184 (Stark-Harris legislation) enacted January 3, 1980, authorized a total of $1,700,000,000 for construction on the Washington Metrorail System. All of the funds authorized under Stark-Harris have been appropriated. In addition, the National Capital Transportation Amendments of 1990, Public Law 101-551, authorized another $1,300,000,000 in Federal capital assistance. Through fiscal year 1996, $849,700,000 has been appropriated, leaving a balance of $350,300,000. Violent Crime Reduction Programs (VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION TRUST FUND) Appropriations, 1996.................................................... Budget estimate, 1997................................... $10,000,000 House allowance......................................................... Committee recommendation ........................... Section 40131 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 authorizes $10,000,000 to establish programs for capital improvements and studies to prevent crime in public transportation. The administration requested $5,000,000 for these purposes in transit in fiscal year 1996. The Committee received no allocation to enable it to fund programs under this account. general provisions County of Kauai, HI.--The Committee has included a general provision (sec. 338) clarifying that funds provided under the Federal Transit Administration's discretionary grants program for the County of Kauai in the fiscal years 1994-95 appropriations acts shall be available for operating expenses, consistent with the directives of the Committee reports accompanying those two bills. WMATA oversight.--The Committee has retained the House provision (sec. 329) requiring that FTA's oversight of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority be conducted from the agency's Washington, DC, offices. ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION The St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation is a wholly owned Government corporation established by the St. Lawrence Seaway Act of May 14, 1954, responsible for the operation, maintenance, and development of the United States portion of the seaway between Montreal and Lake Erie. Operations and Maintenance (Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund) Appropriations, 1996.................................... \1\ $10,150,000 Budget estimate, 1997................................... 10,065,000 House allowance......................................... 10,037,000 Committee recommendation................................ 10,337,000 \1\ Does not include reductions pursuant to sections 327, 335, and 349 of Public Law 104-50 and section 31002 of Public Law 104-134. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Corporation's operations program provides for operation of all facilities, for maintenance--including major items which are deferred to the nonnavigation season, for planning and development activities, and for undertaking various capital improvements to maintain, upgrade, and modernize its facilities. Appropriations are made to the Seaway Corporation from the harbor maintenance trust fund established by Public Law 99-662. These appropriations are the primary source of financing for the operations and maintenance activities of the Corporation. The Congress authorizes the Corporation to make expenditures from available funds and borrowing authority, and to enter into contracts without regard to fiscal year limitations as are necessary to carry out the programs set forth in its budget. For fiscal year 1997, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,337,000. This $300,000 increase above the House allowance was made at the request of the Department of Transportation, and reflects costs associated with DOT employee buyouts. The Department has made good progress in meeting the fiscal year 1999 National Performance Review [NPR] targets regarding employment. Because it is a small agency, the SLSDC contains a disproportionately high number of NPR targeted positions. Performance-based organization [PBO] initiative.--The administration has proposed that eight Government agencies restructure themselves as performance-based organizations [PBO's]. The St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation [SLSDC] is one of these candidate agencies (the others are Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; Patent and Trademark Office; National Technical Information Service; Defense Commissary Agency; Federal Housing Administration mortgage insurance services; Government National Mortgage Association; and Federal Retirement and Insurance Service). Each candidate agency is coordinating with the ``National Performance Review,'' Office of Management and Budget, and Office of Personnel Management to develop authorizing legislation that is customized to meet its unique needs. Though the initial PBO initiative was announced on March 4, 1996, enabling legislation has not yet been submitted to Congress to establish the SLSDC as a performance-based organization. It is the Committee's understanding that as a PBO, the Corporation would remain part of the Department of Transportation, but would be freed of certain departmental constraints. For instance, as a PBO the Corporation would be allowed to streamline its organization, personnel, and procurement rules; would have authority to conduct routine negotiations directly with the Canadian Seaway Authority regarding seaway operations; would be free to set its own policies and directives as they relate to operations; and would no longer be required to contribute to certain expenses shared by departmental operating expenses, such as working capital fund and reimbursable agreement costs. The Committee feels that there are potential operations improvements and cost savings associated with this restructuring, but is concerned that, under the current proposal, the Corporation would be funded by a mandatory annual authorization from the harbor maintenance trust fund, and would not be subject to the annual appropriations process. This lack of oversight is not acceptable to the Committee, nor would it be feasible to make the necessary offsets from mandatory expenses within the DOT and related agencies appropriations bill, which has very limited mandatory funding. RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION The Research and Special Programs Administration [RSPA] was established by the Secretary of Transportation's organizational changes dated July 20, 1977, and serves as a research, analytical, and technical development arm of the Department for multimodal research and development, as well as special programs. Particular emphasis is given to pipeline transportation and the transportation of hazardous cargo by all modes. In 1996, resources are requested for the management and execution of the Offices of Hazardous Materials Safety, Airline Statistics, Emergency Transportation, Pipeline Safety, program and administrative support, the Transportation Safety Institute [TSI], and the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center [VNTSC]. Funds are also requested for the emergency preparedness grants program. Research and Special Programs Appropriations, 1996.................................... $23,937,000 Budget estimate, 1997................................... 28,169,000 House allowance......................................... 23,929,000 Committee recommendation 27,675,000 The Committee has provided a total of $27,675,000 for the ``Research and special programs'' account. The following table summarizes the Committee recommendations: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year Fiscal year House Committee 1996 enacted 1997 estimate allowance recommendation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hazardous materials safety...................... $12,650,000 $12,812,000 $12,772,000 $15,572,000 (Positions)................................. (111) (111) (131) (131) Emergency transportation........................ $1,022,000 $993,000 $993,000 $993,000 (Positions)................................. (7) (7) (7) (7) Research and technology......................... $3,288,000 $7,488,000 $3,323,000 $4,269,000 (Positions)................................. (13) (13) (13) (13) Program and administrative support.............. $7,388,000 $6,876,000 $6,841,000 $6,841,000 (Positions)................................. (46) (46) (46) (46) Accountwide adjustment.......................... -$411,000 .............. .............. .............. --------------------------------------------------------------- Total, research and special programs...... $23,937,000 $28,169,000 $23,929,000 $27,675,000 (Positions)........................... (177) (177) (177) (197) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- hazardous materials safety Hazardous materials safety [HMS] administers a nationwide program of safety regulations to fulfill the Secretary's duty to protect the Nation from the risks to life, health, and property that are inherent in the transportation of hazardous materials by water, air, highway, and railroad. HMS plans, implements, and manages the hazardous materials transportation program consisting of information systems, research and analysis, inspection and enforcement, rulemaking support, training and information dissemination, and emergency procedures. Vitality of the OHMS enforcement program.--The Committee commends the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety for the conduct of its compliance program. The OHMS continues to maintain a vigorous enforcement program: the amount of penalties collected has risen 50 percent over the last 3 years, the cases closed per work year has increased. The Committee encourages the OHMS to maintain this quality level of effort. Inspection and enforcement.--The Committee recommends the $260,000 requested for compliance support, including the $40,000 deleted by the House for the hazardous materials internship program. For many years, the Committee has sought to strengthen the Federal/State partnership in hazardous materials transportation safety. RSPA's internship program, together with its support for training and COHMED, provides the foundation for this partnership. Through this internship, Federal officials learn first hand of the challenges facing State enforcement personnel and State personnel observe Federal enforcement and regulatory strategies and policies. This technology transfer builds a cadre of experts for State governments and leadership for COHMED. The States support this internship program and more candidates apply each year than can be supported. Most importantly, the program improves communications between Federal and State enforcement personnel in regulatory development, emergency response, and enforcement. Hazardous materials training.--In order to maintain funding at the fiscal year 1996 level, the Committee recommends $350,000 for hazardous materials training, an increase of $100,000 above the request. Because of the complexity of the hazmat regulations which occupy more than 1,000 pages of the Code of Federal Regulations, funds for additional training and guidance should not be decreased. State enforcement officers seek the quality training provided at the Transportation Safety Institute. Industry favors inspections that are conducted by competent Federal and State personnel. Information provided by RSPA indicates that during the last 3 years attendance levels at training sessions have held relatively constant at approximately 2,750 students per year and demand has not declined. RSPA proposes CD-Rom training modules as a partial substitute for direct TSI-sponsored training, however, these modules will not offer the advanced training and direct guidance that TSI-sponsored instructors provide. The additional funds recommended also will ensure continuation of a sufficient number of train the trainer classes. Special funding.--Following the recent ValuJet airliner accident, it became obvious to the Committee that RSPA needed to do more in the area of hazardous materials inspections. RSPA is the focal point in the Department for all of the hazardous materials regulatory actions. Presently, RSPA has 20 inspectors that conduct 1,200 inspections annually of shippers and packaging manufacturers. The Committee believes that it is vital to provide additional support at this time so that the Department may initiate several critical hazardous materials safety initiatives. In conjunction with the Federal Aviation Administration, RSPA is directed to provide additional inspections, technical resources, and other activities necessary for an expanded hazardous materials program, which would include such things as: Expand inspections of hazardous materials shippers, by placing emphasis on those who offer those types of materials for air transportation; expand current research initiatives to include a focus on hazardous materials transportation by aircraft, especially in the reactive chemicals and explosives area; and increase outreach to focus more on air transportation issues, including the development of training materials, a training program, and information on shippers, freight forwarders, and carriers, and the need for compliance with the hazardous materials regulations. The Committee also expects that RSPA will increase its rulemaking activities, and receiving more requests for interpretations of hazmat regulations and exemption applications as a result of FAA's hazardous materials program. The Committee has provided $980,000 above the budget request for contracted support, including: --Information resource management.--$125,000 is provided to upgrade the hazardous materials information system to allow easier electronic data manipulation and recordation of hazardous materials data and information supplied by RSPA employees, Federal and State agencies, industry, and the public. --Hazardous materials training.--$225,000 is included to upgrade current and for the development of future training modules to assist FAA inspectors and to conduct at least 20 additional separate hazardous materials classes in 1997 that will involve the training of approximately 350 to 400 FAA inspectors of hazardous materials. --Hazardous materials technology.--$315,000 is provided so that RSPA may engage contractor support and additional expertise to support an increase in the demand for safety reviews of explosives and reactive chemicals, and to also outline and provide information regarding new chemicals, new technologies, and materials which increase the safety of transportation of hazardous materials. --Hazardous materials information center.--$315,000 is provided to support, by contract, the increased workload. In the personnel area, the Committee has provided $1,680,000. It is expected that under this funding level RSPA will be able to employ 15 additional inspectors, primarily to enhance its capability to perform compliance oversight, particularly with respect to shippers and offerers of hazardous materials by air, and to strengthen RSPA's outreach activities with Federal, State, and local compliance agencies, the regulated industry, and the public. RSPA currently has 20 inspectors who conduct 1,200 inspections annually. FAA has informed RSPA that it intends to significantly increase the number of hazardous materials inspections by targeting air carriers and air freight forwarders, of whom there are 2,000 domestically. In addition to the additional inspectors, the Committee understands that it may be necessary to hire one or two additional personnel in the exemptions and approvals program, and one or two in the Office of the Chief Counsel for the support and review of enforcement cases. Emergency transportation Emergency transportation [ET] programs provide support to the Secretary of Transportation for his statutory and administrative responsibilities in the area of transportation civil emergency preparedness and response. The office develops and coordinates the Department's policies, plans, and programs, in headquarters and the field to provide for emergency preparedness. ET is responsible for implementing the Transportation Department's National Security Program initiatives, including an assessment of the transportation implications of the changing global threat. The Office is also charged with the development of crisis management plans to mitigate disasters and the implementation of these plans nationally and regionally in an emergency. The Committee recommends $993,000 for emergency transportation, which is the amount requested by the administration and provided by the House. Research and technology The Office of Research and Technology [ORT] assists in the definition of research policy, maintains oversight over research and development programs conducted by the Department, and provides coordination of research among the modes. This mission is accomplished by providing staff support to the Director of Technology Deployment (in OST), as Chairman of the DOT Research and Technology Coordinating Council. ORT is also charged with assuring that transportation research from around the country is made available in useful form to Federal, State, and local elected and appointed officials, the transportation community, and academia. The program also provides program development and research dissemination assistance in the system of the University Transportation Centers Program. The Committee concurs with the $100,000 reduction proposed by the House for technology dissemination, provides $300,000 above the House allowance for technology applications, and provides $650,000 above the fiscal year 1996 level for technology development. Program and administrative support The program support function provides legal, financial, management, and administrative support to the operating offices within RSPA. These support activities include executive direction (Office of the Administrator), program and policy support, civil rights and special programs, legal services and support, and management and administration. The Committee has provided $6,841,000 and concurs with the $35,000 House reduction for information resources management. Pipeline Safety (Pipeline Safety Fund) Appropriations, 1996.................................... $28,750,000 Budget estimate, 1997................................... 31,500,000 House allowance......................................... 28,460,000 Committee recommendation 28,750,000 The Research and Special Programs Administration is also responsible for the Department's Pipeline Safety Program. This activity is entirely financed by user fees assessed to the pipeline operators and by fees paid to the oilspill liability trust fund [OSLTF]. Included under this account are the operations activity providing for the salaries and expenses and the supervisory and management functions for pipeline safety regulatory and enforcement programs. Also included is research and development to support the Pipeline Safety Program and grants-in-aid to State agencies that conduct a Pipeline Safety Program. The following table summarizes the Committee recommendations: [In thousands of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year-- ---------------------------- House Committee Program 1997 allowance recommendation 1996 enacted estimate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Operating expenses.................................... 9,550 10,683 10,683 10,300 Information systems................................... 1,200 1,490 1,350 1,200 Risk assessment/technical studies..................... 1,750 1,800 1,800 1,800 Compliance............................................ 300 300 300 300 Training and information dissemination................ 850 927 927 850 Emergency notification................................ 100 100 100 100 Public education...................................... 500 200 200 200 Environmental indexing................................ 500 ............ ............ .............. Research and development.............................. 2,000 2,000 1,100 1,500 State grants.......................................... 11,000 12,500 12,000 12,000 Risk management grants................................ ............ 500 ............ 500 One-call grants....................................... 1,000 1,000 ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) --------------------------------------------------------- Totals.......................................... 28,750 31,500 28,460 28,750 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Funded at $1,000,000 from uncommitted balances in the reserve fund. Operating expenses.--OPS requested an increase in travel from $665,000 in fiscal year 1996 to $1,142,000 in fiscal year 1997. Because of budgetary constraints, the Committee recommends a reduction of $383,000 in the request. --Cooperation with State of Hawaii.--On May 14, 1996, approximately 900 barrels of heavy crude oil spilled into the Waiau freshwater tributary and then into Pearl Harbor in the State of Hawaii. To date, in excess of 750 barrels have been recovered through the assistance of the U.S. Coast Guard. The Office of Pipeline Safety is without a presence in Hawaii, and as such, there is no local office to ensure pipeline maintenance, operation, and inspection. The need for ongoing Federal monitoring and assistance is critical, and may aid in averting future spills. The Committee is pleased with the level of assistance the Office of Pipeline Safety is providing State officials which may result in the establishment of a Hawaii-based office and the solidification of a Federal-State partnership. Information systems.--Due to budgetary considerations, the Committee provides $1,200,000 for information systems, the same amount provided in fiscal year 1996. This program has grown significantly in the last 3 years, going from $402,000 in fiscal year 1994 to $1,200,000 in fiscal year 1996. Further increases are not merited at this time. Nondestructive evaluation.--The Committee recommends $900,000, as requested in the budget, for NDE technology development. Even though OPS has an unobligated balance of $1,700,000 for this project, current agency plans anticipate expending last year's appropriation by the end of this fiscal year. The requested amount is necessary to accelerate research in this area and to verify inspection technologies under pressurized pipeline conditions. This research will evaluate inspection robots to determine their use in detecting pipeline cracking and corrosion. Successful completion of this activity will greatly improve the ability to detect pipeline defects and significantly lower the detection cost. RSPA has signed a memorandum of understanding with the Gas Research Institute [GRI] on this project and has developed a detailed workplan. National Technical Information Service.--The Committee is concerned that OPS has failed to enter many of the reports and documents resulting from its research into the National Technical Information System [NTIS]. These documents are in the public domain and should be widely disseminated to be of maximum benefit. The Committee directs the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety to ensure that OPS promptly enters such reports and documents into the NTIS. Pipeline grant program.--The Committee recommends $12,000,000 for the natural gas and hazardous liquid pipeline safety grants. One-call notification.--The Committee's recommendation includes $1,000,000 for the establishment and development of one-call notification systems through one-call grants. These funds will be used for a diversity of purposes including enacting, enhancing, or implementing one call legislation or regulations, encouraging damage prevention programs and associated mapping and enforcement activities. These funds are provided because one call systems are the best means of reducing third party damage to pipelines. Pipeline release reports submitted to DOT from operators indicate that third party damage or damage caused by outside forces is the number one cause of all pipeline releases. The Committee concurs with the House bill language which directs the Office of Pipeline Safety to use up to $1,000,000 from their reserve fund for this program. The effect of this approach is that more funding is available for State grants, a program which in the past had been used to pay for the one-call notification activity. OPS indicated that only $40,000 in fiscal year 1995 and $30,000 in fiscal year 1996 were used for enforcement activities related to one-call regulations and laws. According to OPS, only five States use siguificant one-call enforcement mechanisms. Because it is essential that excavators and other third-parties use one-call systems, the Committee believes that a more balanced use of grant funds, one that combines incentives to improve education as well as enforcement strategies, would be useful. Risk management grants.--The Committee's recommendation includes $500,000 for the establishment of risk management grants. Pipeline Safety (Oilspill Liability Trust Fund) Appropriations, 1996.................................... $2,698,000 Budget estimate, 1997................................... 2,528,000 House allowance......................................... 2,528,000 Committee recommendation 2,528,000 The Committee recommends $2,528,000 to be derived from the oilspill liability trust fund for implementation of the Office of Pipeline Safety [OPS] responsibilities under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 [OPA]. RSPA has concluded that as a result of industry improving its facility response plans and participating in spill drills, the pipeline industry has greatly improved its overall preparedness. The funds provided will allow exercising of these plans, publication of a lessons learned document, review of response plans with significant changes, and a determination of a baseline assessing the ability of industry to respond to specific pipeline releases. Emergency Preparedness Grants (Emergency Preparedness Fund) Appropriations, 1996.................................... $400,000 (Limitation)........................................ 8,890,000 Budget estimate, 1997................................... 200,000 (Limitation)........................................................ House allowance......................................... 200,000 (Limitation)........................................................ Committee recommendation................................ 200,000 (Limitation)........................................................ The Committee recommends $200,000 for the training curriculum activities authorized under existing law. The Hazardous Materials Uniform Safety Act of 1990 requires RSPA to: (1) develop and implement a reimbursable emergency preparedness grants program; (2) monitor public sector emergency response training and planning and provide technical assistance to States, political subdivisions, and Indian tribes; and (3) develop and update periodically a national training curriculum for emergency responders. These activities are financed by receipts received from the hazardous materials shipper and carrier registration fees, which are placed in the emergency preparedness fund. RSPA estimates that receipts in fiscal year 1997 will be essentially the same as the actual fiscal year 1995 receipts, which were $6,873,000. The administration had requested that the appropriations bill not include a limitation on obligations, a limitation which had been carried in previous bills. The reason RSPA made this request is that they are estimating that the emergency preparedness fund will be slightly larger than the expected $6,873,000 in receipts, and they are expecting to obligate all available resources within the fund. The House concurred with the administration's request, and did not impose an obligation limitation for the emergency preparedness grants program. By removing this limitation, RSPA will be able to obligate any carryover balances and recoveries from prior years, which previous limitations had prohibited. The Committee is recommending the administration requested language, and has imposed no obligation ceiling on the program. The following table is for illustrative purposes only, based on RSPA's estimates for fiscal year 1997 activity. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year Fiscal year 1996 enacted 1997 budget House Committee \1\ estimate \2\ allowance \1\ recommendation \1\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Grants...................................... $4,933,000 $5,782,000 $5,782,000 $5,782,000 Technical assistance........................ 400,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 Administrative costs........................ 431,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 Emergency response guidebook................ 700,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Total................................. 6,464,000 6,682,000 6,682,000 6,682,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The obligation limitation for fiscal year 1996 was for up to $8,890,000. \2\ Estimated levels only. OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Salaries and Expenses Appropriations, 1996.................................... \1\ $40,238,000 Budget estimate, 1997................................... 39,771,000 House allowance......................................... 39,450,000 Committee recommendation................................ 39,700,000 \1\ Does not includes reductions pursuant to sections 327, 335, and 349 of Public Law 104-50 and section 31002 of Public Law 104-134. The Inspector General Act of 1978 established the Office of Inspector General [OIG] as an independent and objective organization, with a mission to: (1) conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations of the Department; (2) provide leadership and recommend policies designed to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the administration of programs and operations; (3) prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse; (4) keep the Secretary and Congress currently informed regarding problems and deficiencies; and (5) coordinate and recommend policies which promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness and which help prevent fraud, waste, and abuse for activities involving the Department and other agencies and entities. OIG is divided into three major functional units: Office of Assistant Inspector General for Auditing, Office of Assistant Inspector General for Inspections and Evaluations, and Office of Assistant Inspector General for Investigations. All three units are supported by headquarters and regional staff. The Committee recommends $39,700,000, which is $250,000 above the House allowance. The House included in bill language a prohibition against the use of any funds to conduct contract audits. Given that nearly $2,000,000 of the inspector general's fiscal year 1997 request was based on contracting for audits, the House bill language results in an increase to the OIG base while necessary contract audits would be paid from each agency's ``Operating expense'' account. The Committee recommends bill language limiting contract audit funds of the inspector general to $1,900,000. BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND) Appropriations, 1996.................................... $2,200,000 (By transfer, highway trust fund)................... (20,000,000) Budget estimate, 1997................................... 3,100,000 (By transfer, highway trust fund)................... (25,000,000) House allowance......................................................... (By transfer, highway trust fund)................... (25,000,000) Committee recommendation................................................ (By transfer, highway trust fund) (25,000,000) The Bureau of Transportation Statistics [BTS] was established in section 6006 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA], to compile, analyze, and make accessible information on the Nation's transportation systems, collect information on intermodal transportation, and enhance the quality and effectiveness of the statistical programs of the Department of Transportation. Financing of BTS operations is authorized as contract authority out of the highway trust fund, by transfer from the Federal-aid highways program, and is subject to the obligations limitation on that program. For fiscal year 1997, a funding level of $25,000,000 is authorized for BTS programs. BTS offices include the Director, Statistical Programs and Services, Transportation Studies, and the Office of Aviation Information [OAI]. In addition, effective January 1, 1996, the responsibility to collect motor carrier financial data was transferred to the BTS after the sunset of the Interstate Commerce Commission. In Public Law 104-50, the Office of Aviation Information was transferred from the Research and Special Programs Administration and the fiscal year 1996 appropriation of $2,200,000 went directly to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics as a new account. The Office of Aviation Information collects and compiles financial and traffic (passenger and cargo) data. This information provides the Government with uniform and comprehensive economic and market data on individual airline operations. This program includes a small field office located in Anchorage, AK, which provides consumers and the Government with airline data related to essential air service and the intra-Alaskan mail rate program. For 1997, the administration is requesting an appropriation of $3,100,000 from the airport and airway trust fund for the OAI, a 41-percent increase above the fiscal year 1996 enacted level. The majority of this increase is associated with contract costs and computer equipment to be used in developing a software program and data processing system to directly access origin and destination data from airlines' computer reservation systems, for both domestic and international flights. The Committee lauds the OAI's efforts to improve and upgrade the 25-year-old airline data retrieval system. The statistical aviation data compiled by OAI includes: airline passenger traffic statistics, ontime performance data by carrier, financial performance and certification data, fuel purchase and consumption, and other business and consumer directed statistics. These statistics are vitally important to the Federal Government and the aviation industry. In some cases, it is statutorily required that these statistics be used by the Federal Aviation Administration and the Office of the Secretary of Transportation in allocation of trust funds, aviation bilateral negotiations, and other Federal transportation policy decisionmaking. Offsetting collections.--The Committee has deleted House bill language requiring that all airline statistics activities be offset by user fees charged for those activities. In calendar year 1995, Office of Aviation Information data sales totaled only $177,000. Though the Committee believes that these offsetting costs should be maximized to the extent possible (and holds the same belief concerning the sales of all BTS- generated data products), it is unrealistic to expect the OAI to completely offset its operating costs through data sales and user fees in fiscal year 1997. However, the Committee agrees with the House assertion that BTS contract authority funds could be made available for the compilation of aviation statistics, and has, therefore, included a provision making up to $3,100,000 of BTS's ISTEA contract authority available for OAI, and has not provided either airport and airways trust funds or general funds to finance the operations of the Office of Aviation Information. Two ways that BTS can decrease expenditures in order to more readily absorb the costs of OAI are more efficient collection of funds from agency reimbursable agreements and tightening staff travel. BTS worldwide web site/National Transportation Library.--In order to promote the private sector development of magnetic levitation (maglev) technologies, and recognizing the wealth of information previously collected by Government and industry on maglev technology, the Committee directs the Bureau of Transportation Statistics to collect statistical and other relevant information regarding the application of maglev technologies and to make available such information to the public by means of the National Transportation Library, part of BTS's dedicated worldwide web site accessible via the internet. The Committee expects that the Bureau will utilize the expertise and existing data collections of the High-Speed Rail/ Maglev Association Foundation in collecting and reviewing such information. General provisions.--The Committee has not included the provision requested by the administration which gives Bureau of Transportation Statistics the authority to enter into grants and cooperative agreements with other agencies, institutions, and individuals to collect data on the impact of natural disasters on transportation systems. The House bill did not contain this provision. Since BTS is absorbing new additional costs for OAI activities and motor carrier data collection, the expenditure of up to 5 percent of the agency's resources could potentially limit the allocation of funds to ongoing data and analysis programs. The Committee believes that BTS should request this natural disaster authorization in the next ISTEA, which is due for reauthorization in 1997. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD Salaries and Expenses Appropriations, 1996.................................... \1\ $8,421,000 Budget estimate, 1997................................... \2\ 3,000,000 House allowance......................................... 12,344,000 Committee recommendation................................ 12,344,000 \1\ Appropriated in section 342 of Public Law 104-50 for the successor to the Interstate Commerce Commission. \2\ Represents $15,344,000 in user fees of which a maximum of $3,000,000 would become available as an appropriation and subsequently be reduced as offsetting collections are received. The Surface Transportation Board was created on January 1, 1996, by Public Law 104-88, the ICC Termination Act of 1995. Consistent with the continued trend toward less regulation of the surface transportation industry, the act abolished the ICC, eliminated certain functions that had previously been implemented by the ICC, transferred core rail and certain other functions to the Board, and transferred motor licensing and certain other motor functions to the FHWA. The Board is specifically responsible for the regulation of the rail and pipeline industries and certain nonlicensing regulation of motor carriers and water carriers. Moreover, the Board, through its exemption authority, is able to promote deregulation administratively on a case-by-case basis. Rail reforms made by the Staggers Rail Act of 1980 also have been continued. The fiscal year 1997 program request is $15,344,000 to expand current Board staffing to meet projected one-time workload increases imposed by the act as well as ongoing workload demands. Under the administration's proposal this amount would be derived solely from user fees collected pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 9701 from the beneficiaries of the Board's activities. However, the Committee agrees with the House that fully fee financing the ICC successor is not a viable option for fiscal year 1997. Such a proposal would require enactment of legislation and promulgation of new rules that are unlikely to be in place in time to ensure undisrupted funding for the Board. The Committee has provided $12,344,000 for activities of the Board, including statutory liability for severance payments. This amount will be augmented by the collection of user fees as provided under current law. The Board has informed the Committee that it anticipates collecting up to $3,000,000 from these funds. Bill language has been included to assure that fees received in excess of $3,000,000 shall remain available to the Board but shall not be available for obligation until October 1, 1997. TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD Salaries and Expenses Appropriations, 1996.................................... $3,500,000 Budget estimate, 1997................................... 3,540,000 House allowance......................................... 3,540,000 Committee recommendation 3,540,000 The Committee recommends $3,540,000 for the operations of the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, the same funding level requested by the administration and provided by the House. The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (the Access Board) is the lead Federal Agency promoting accessibility for all handicapped persons. The Access Board was reauthorized through fiscal year 1997 in the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992, Public Law 102-569. Under this authorization, the Access Board's functions are to ensure compliance with the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, and to develop guidelines for and technical assistance to individuals and entities with rights or duties under titles II and III of the Americans With Disabilities Act. The Access Board establishes minimum accessibility guidelines and requirements for public accommodations and commercial facilities, transit facilities and vehicles, State and local government facilities, children's environments, and recreational facilities. The Access Board also provides technical assistance to Government agencies, public and private organizations, individuals, and businesses on the removal of accessibility barriers. Telecommunications Act of 1996.--The Committee wishes to recognize the Access Board for undertaking and absorbing the costs associated with developing accessibility guidelines for telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment, as required by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Issuance of these guidelines is required by August 8, 1997, an 18-month deadline. This is an unusually compressed timeframe during which the Board, working in conjunction with the Federal Communications Commission, will establish an advisory committee, publish a notice of proposed rulemaking, solicit public input, and publish final guidelines. NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD Salaries and Expenses Appropriations, 1996.................................... $38,774,000 Budget estimate, 1997................................... 42,407,000 House allowance......................................... 42,407,000 Committee recommendation 42,407,000 The Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 established the National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB] as an independent Federal agency to promote transportation safety by conducting independent accident investigations. In addition, the Act authorizes the Board to make safety recommendations, conduct safety studies, and oversee safety activities of other Government agencies involved in transportation. The Board also reviews appeals of adverse actions by the Department of Transportation with respect to airmen and seamen certificates and licenses. The Board has no regulatory authority over the transportation industry. Thus, its effectiveness depends on its reputation for impartial and accurate accident reports, realistic and feasible safety recommendations, and on public confidence in its commitment to improving transportation safety. The bill includes an appropriation of $42,407,000, which is $3,633,000 above the fiscal year 1996 level. This funding is the same as the administration's amended budget request and the same as provided by the House. The amount recommended provides for a full-time equivalent [FTE] employment level of 370, an increase of 20 FTE's over fiscal year 1996. The following table incorporates the NTSB's internal realignment of administrative functions and provides for salaries and expenses to be distributed as follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Budget Staff (FTE) authority ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Policy and direction................... 45 $5,694,000 Aviation safety........................ 129 14,696,000 Surface transportation safety.......... 99 11,207,000 Research and engineering............... 56 6,618,000 Administration......................... 31 2,831,000 Administrative law judges.............. 10 1,361,000 -------------------------------- Total............................ 370 42,407,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Committee agrees with the House expectation that it be advised in cases where the Board plans to deviate in any way from its total FTE allocations or by more than 10 percent from the funding allocations listed above. PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION Panama Canal Revolving Fund (limitation on administrative expenses) Limitation, 1996.......................................\1\ ($52,741,000) Budget estimate, 1997................................................... House allowance......................................................... Committee recommendation................................................ \1\ Includes $2,000,000 supplemental 1996 funds in Public Law 104-134, the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriation Act of 1996. The Committee concurs with the administration's request and House action which deletes the limitation on administrative expenses of the Panama Canal Commission. The Panama Canal Commission is a business enterprise which, by law, must operate at no cost to the U.S. taxpayers. Toll revenues collected from vessels transiting the Panama Canal and revenues from other services are deposited into the Panama Canal revolving fund, from which the Commission obtains its operating and capital funds. Under the Department of Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106), the Panama Canal Commission has been reconstituted as a United States Government corporation. Since the Panama Canal Commission undergoes reauthorization annually, and generates all its own revenues, there is no further need to carry appropriations language limiting the administrative expenses or operating and capital expenses of the Commission. However, Public Law 104-106 does not exempt the agency from oversight by Congress, and the Committee expects to continue its annual review of the Commission's budget submittal until the transfer of control over the Panama Canal to the Government of Panama takes effect on December 31, 1999. TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS The Committee concurs with the general provisions that apply to the Department and agencies funded through this legislation in fiscal year 1997 as approved by the House in H.R. 3675, with the following deletions or changes. Other changes are explained more fully under the account or agency affected by the general provision. changes, deletions/replacements, new sections title iii Sec. 310(c)(3). Adds language requested by the administration which would allow for a takedown from the Federal-aid Highways program for specific authorized activities, including section 140(b) of 23 U.S.C., section 1012(b) of Public Law 102-240, section 104(I) of title 23, section 1069(y) of Public Law 102-240; and section 130(d) of the Symms National Recreational Trails Act of 1991. Sec. 310(g). Includes language requested by the administration which would allow for an increase in the administrative takedown from the existing 3\3/4\ percent to 4\3/4\ percent. Sec. 323. Deletes the House provision which prohibits the use of funds to prepare, propose, or promulgate any rule under title V of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, which prescribes corporate average fuel economy standards for motor vehicles. Sec. 324. Adds a proviso to House language which directs the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to provide in writing that safety conditions warrant the expenditure of funds for a sixth runway at the new Denver International Airport. Sec. 325. Deletes House language which requires the Bureau of Transportation Statistics to increase its fees to $3,100,000 to cover the costs of the Office of Aviation Statistics. The Committee provides the funding through a drawdown of existing Bureau of Transportation Statistics funds. Sec. 330. Deletes the House provision that prohibits the use of funds for improvements to the Miller Highway in New York. Sec. 331. Changes the cap on advisory committees at the Department of Transportation from $850,000 to $1,050,000. Sec. 333. Deletes the House provision which prohibits funds other than that appropriated to pay for the activities of the Surface Transportation Board. The Committee has added a provision which adds a new section (m) to section 24902 of title 49, U.S.C., relating to Amtrak operations on the Northeast corridor. Sec. 335. Adds a provision regarding the full funding grant agreement for the Westside light rail project, Portland, OR. Sec. 337. Deletes the House provision regarding the use of funding for buses in the State of Michigan. Sec. 338. Deletes the House provision which provides funding for a national civil aviation review commission. The Committee has added a new section which allows transit capital funds previously provided to Kauai, HI, to be used for operating expenses. Sec. 339. Deletes the House provision which allowed for the transfer of a lighthouse at Montauk, NY. The Committee has added a new proviso which clarifies the status of an interstate maintenance project and a Federal lands project funded with discretionary funds. Sec. 341. Adds a new proviso that allows the Secretary of Transportation to collect fees from users of fitness centers operated by and for the Department. Sec. 342. Prohibits the use of any funds by the National Transportation Safety Board to study allowing individuals 60 years of age to pilot commercial aircraft. Sec. 343. Limits the amount of bonuses and cash awards for the employees of the Department of Transportation to no more than $25,448,300. Sec. 344. Adds language exempting the National Passenger Railroad Corporation from State or local laws relating to abandoned or unclaimed ticket refunds. Sec. 345. Directs FAA to provide weather observers at Dutch Harbor, AK. Sec. 346. Adds a new proviso which allows the Secretary of Transportation to offer separation incentives for employees of the U.S. Coast Guard, Research and Special Programs Administration, Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, and Office of the Secretary. title iv Sec. 401. Deletes the House provision which prohibits the use of certain trucks on U.S. Route 15 in Virginia. Sec. 402. Deletes the House provision which allows for funds in Mobile, AL, to be used for additional purposes. Sec. 403. Deletes the House provision regarding a transfer of funds which expands the use of funds for projects in St. Thomas, VI. The Committee has added a new sections which allows funds previously appropriated for certain highway-rail grade crossing in Mineola, NY, to be used on other highway-rail grade crossing in Nassau and Suffolk County, NY. Sec. 405. Deletes the House provision which expands the definition of the use of highway funds in Petoskey, MI. Sec. 406. The Committee adds a new provision which allows funds originally intended for a study in Whiting, IN, to be used for a congestion relief project in Merrillville, IN. title v Sec. 501. Deletes the House provision which places a limit on new loan guarantees for certain railroad projects. COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports on general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment to the House bill ``which proposes an item of appropriation which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously passed by the Senate during that session.'' Federal Aviation Administration: Operations.......................................... 4,899,957,000 Facilities and equipment............................ 1,788,700,000 Research, engineering, and development.............. 187,000,000 Grants-in-aid for airports.......................... 1,460,000,000 Federal Railroad Administration: Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation....................................... 592,000,000 Northeast Corridor Improvement Program.............. 200,000,000 Rhode Island rail development....................... 10,000,000 Alaska railroad rehabilitation...................... 10,000,000 High-speed rail trainsets and facilities............ 80,000,000 Railroad research and development................... 20,000,000 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: Operations and research............................. 133,195,000 Research and Special Programs Administration: Pipeline safety.............................................. 28,750,000 COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, the accompanying bill was ordered reported from the Committee, subject to amendment and subject to the subcommittee allocation, by recorded vote of 28-0, a quorum being present. Yeas Nays Chairman Hatfield Mr. Stevens Mr. Cochran Mr. Specter Mr. Domenici Mr. Bond Mr. Gorton Mr. McConnell Mr. Mack Mr. Burns Mr. Shelby Mr. Jeffords Mr. Gregg Mr. Bennett Mr. Campbell Mr. Byrd Mr. Inouye Mr. Hollings Mr. Johnston Mr. Leahy Mr. Bumpers Mr. Lautenberg Mr. Harkin Ms. Mikulski Mr. Reid Mr. Kerrey Mr. Kohl Mrs. Murray COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports on a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute or part of any statute include ``(a) the text of the statute or part thereof which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a comparative print of that part of the bill or joint resolution making the amendment and of the statute or part thereof proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-through type and italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical devices the omissions and insertions which would be made by the bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form recommended by the committee.'' In compliance with this rule, the following changes in existing law proposed to be made by the bill are shown as follows: existing law to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets; new matter is printed in italic; and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman. Section 3035(b) of Public Law 102-240 is amended as follows: (b) Westside Light Rail Project.--No later than April 30, 1992, the Secretary shall negotiate and sign a multiyear grant agreement with the Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon which includes [$515,000,000] $555,000,000 from funds made available under section 3(k)(1)(B) of the Federal Transit Act at the Federal share contained in House Report 101-584 to carry out the construction of the locally preferred alternative for the Westside Light Rail Project, including system related costs, set forth in Public Law 101-516 and as defined in House Report 101-584. Such agreement shall also provide for the completion of alternatives analysis, the final Environmental Impact Analysis, and preliminary engineering for the Hillsboro extension to the Westside Project as set forth in Public Law 101-516. Section 24902 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: ``(m) Applicable Procedures.--No State or local building, zoning, subdivision, or similar or related law, nor any other State or local law from which a project would be exempt if undertaken by the Federal Government or an agency thereof within a Federal enclave wherein Federal jurisdiction is exclusive, including without limitation with respect to all such laws referenced herein above requirements for permits, actions, approvals or filings, shall apply in connection with the construction, ownership, use, operation, financing, leasing, conveying, mortgaging or enforcing a mortgage of (i) any improvement undertaken by or for the benefit of Amtrak as part of, or in furtherance of, the Northeast Corridor Improvement Project (including without limitation maintenance, service, inspection or similar facilities acquired, constructed or used for high speed trainsets) or chapter 241, 243, or 247 of this title or (ii) any land (and right, title or interest created with respect thereto) on which such improvement is located and adjoining, surrounding or any related land. These exemptions shall remain in effect and be applicable with respect to such land and improvements for the benefit of any mortgagee before, upon and after coming into possession of such improvements or land, any third party purchasers thereof in foreclosure (or through a deed in lieu of foreclosure), and their respective successors and assigns, in each case to the extent the land or improvements are used, or held for use, for railroad purposes or purposes accessory thereto. This subsection (m) shall not apply to any improvement or related land unless Amtrak receives a Federal operating subsidy in the fiscal year in which Amtrak commits to or initiates such improvement.'' BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS AMENDED [In millions of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Budget authority Outlays --------------------------------------------------- Committee Amount of Committee Amount of allocation bill allocation bill ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations to its subcommittees of amounts in the First Concurrent Resolution for 1997: Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies: Defense discretionary................................... ........... ........... 37 \1\ 37 Nondefense discretionary................................ 11,950 11,950 35,416 35,416 Violent crime reduction fund............................ ........... ........... ........... ........... Mandatory............................................... 605 605 602 602 Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation: 1997.................................................... ........... ........... ........... \2\ 12,270 1998.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 13,502 1999.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 5,024 2000.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 1,830 2001 and future year.................................... ........... ........... ........... 3,033 Financial assistance to State and local governments for 1997 in bill.................................................... NA 858 NA 3,860 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. \2\ Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. NA: Not applicable. COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Senate Committee recommendation compared with (+ or -) Item 1996 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance Committee ----------------------------------------------------------- recommendation 1996 appropriation Budget estimate House allowance ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary Salaries and expenses............................... $56,189,000 $55,376,000 $53,816,000 $53,376,000 -$2,813,000 -$2,000,000 -$440,000 Office of Civil Rights.............................. 6,554,000 5,574,000 5,574,000 5,574,000 -980,000 .................. .................. Transportation planning, research, and development.. 8,220,000 7,919,000 3,000,000 4,158,000 -4,062,000 -3,761,000 +1,158,000 Transportation Administrative Service Center........ (103,149,000) .................. (124,812,000) (124,812,000) (+21,663,000) (+124,812,000) .................. Payments to air carriers (Airport and Airway Trust Fund): (Liquidation of contract authorization)......... (22,600,000) (21,922,000) (10,000,000) (25,900,000) (+3,300,000) (+3,978,000) (+15,900,000) (Limitation on obligations)..................... (22,600,000) (21,922,000) (10,000,000) (25,900,000) (+3,300,000) (+3,978,000) (+15,900,000) Rescission of contract authority................ (-16,000,000) (-16,678,000) (-28,600,000) (-12,700,000) (+3,300,000) (+3,978,000) (+15,900,000) Rescission...................................... (-6,786,971) (-1,133,373) (-1,133,000) (-1,133,000) (+5,653,971) (+373) .................. Rental payments..................................... 135,200,000 137,581,000 127,447,000 132,500,000 -2,700,000 -5,081,000 +5,053,000 Minority business resource center program........... 1,900,000 1,900,000 1,900,000 1,900,000 .................. .................. .................. (Limitation on direct loans).................... (15,000,000) (15,000,000) (15,000,000) (15,000,000) .................. .................. .................. Minority business outreach.......................... 2,900,000 2,900,000 2,900,000 2,900,000 .................. .................. .................. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total, Office of the Secretary................ 210,963,000 211,250,000 194,637,000 200,408,000 -10,555,000 -10,842,000 +5,771,000 (Limitations on obligations).............. (22,600,000) (21,922,000) (10,000,000) (25,900,000) (+3,300,000) (+3,978,000) (+15,900,000) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total budgetary resources............... (233,563,000) (233,172,000) (204,637,000) (226,308,000) (-7,255,000) (-6,864,000) (+21,671,000) =========================================================================================================================================== Coast Guard Operating expenses.................................. 2,278,991,000 2,519,350,000 2,609,100,000 2,331,350,000 +52,359,000 -188,000,000 -277,750,000 Defense function (050).......................... .................. 118,500,000 .................. .................. .................. -118,500,000 .................. (Transfer from DOD)............................. (300,000,000) .................. .................. (300,000,000) .................. (+300,000,000) (+300,000,000) Acquisition, construction, and improvements: Offsetting collections.......................... .................. -20,000,000 -20,000,000 .................. .................. +20,000,000 +20,000,000 Vessels......................................... 167,600,000 237,000,000 205,600,000 227,960,000 +60,360,000 -9,040,000 +22,360,000 Aircraft........................................ 12,000,000 21,400,000 18,300,000 19,040,000 +7,040,000 -2,360,000 +740,000 Other equipment................................. 49,200,000 46,700,000 39,900,000 46,200,000 -3,000,000 -500,000 +6,300,000 Shore facilities and aids to navigation facilities..................................... 88,875,000 59,500,000 47,950,000 52,900,000 -35,975,000 -6,600,000 +4,950,000 Personnel and related support................... 44,700,000 47,000,000 46,250,000 47,000,000 +2,300,000 .................. +750,000 Rescission, fiscal year 1995.................... .................. .................. (-355,000) .................. .................. .................. (+355,000) Rescission, fiscal year 1996.................... .................. .................. (-3,400,000) .................. .................. .................. (+3,400,000) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subtotal, AC&I................................ 362,375,000 391,600,000 334,245,000 393,100,000 +30,725,000 +1,500,000 +58,855,000 =========================================================================================================================================== Environmental compliance and restoration............ 21,000,000 25,000,000 21,000,000 23,000,000 +2,000,000 -2,000,000 +2,000,000 Port Safety Development............................. 15,000,000 .................. .................. 5,000,000 -10,000,000 +5,000,000 +5,000,000 Alteration of bridges............................... 16,000,000 2,000,000 16,000,000 10,000,000 -6,000,000 +8,000,000 -6,000,000 Retired pay......................................... 582,022,000 608,084,000 608,084,000 608,084,000 +26,062,000 .................. .................. Reserve training.................................... 62,000,000 65,890,000 65,890,000 65,890,000 +3,890,000 .................. .................. Research, development, test, and evaluation......... 18,000,000 20,300,000 19,000,000 19,550,000 +1,550,000 -750,000 +550,000 Boat safety (Aquatic Resources Trust Fund).......... 20,000,000 .................. 35,000,000 10,000,000 -10,000,000 +10,000,000 -25,000,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total, Coast Guard............................ 3,375,388,000 3,750,724,000 3,708,319,000 3,465,974,000 +90,586,000 -284,750,000 -242,345,000 =========================================================================================================================================== Federal Aviation Administration Operations.......................................... 4,645,712,000 4,918,269,000 4,900,000,000 4,899,957,000 +254,245,000 -18,312,000 -43,000 Offsetting Collections.......................... .................. -150,000,000 -30,000,000 -75,000,000 -75,000,000 +75,000,000 -45,000,000 Facilities and equipment (Airport and Airway Trust Fund).............................................. 1,934,883,000 1,788,700,000 1,800,000,000 1,788,700,000 -146,183,000 .................. -11,300,000 Rescission...................................... (-60,000,000) .................. .................. .................. (+60,000,000) .................. .................. Research, engineering, and development (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)................................. 185,698,000 195,700,000 185,000,000 187,000,000 +1,302,000 -8,700,000 +2,000,000 Grants-in-aid for airports (Airport and Airway Trust Fund): (Liquidation of contract authorization)......... (1,500,000,000) (1,500,000,000) (1,500,000,000) (1,500,000,000) .................. .................. .................. (Limitation on obligations)..................... (1,450,000,000) (1,350,000,000) (1,300,000,000) (1,460,000,000) (+10,000,000) (+110,000,000) (+160,000,000) Rescission of contract authority................ (-664,000,000) .................. .................. .................. (+664,000,000) .................. .................. Aircraft purchase loan guarantee program (indefinite borrowing authority)............................... 50,000 .................. .................. .................. -50,000 .................. .................. (Limitation on borrowing authority)............. (1,600,000) .................. .................. .................. (-1,600,000) .................. .................. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total, Federal Aviation Administration........ 6,766,343,000 6,752,669,000 6,855,000,000 6,800,657,000 +34,314,000 +47,988,000 -54,343,000 (Limitations on obligations).............. (1,450,000,000) (1,350,000,000) (1,300,000,000) (1,460,000,000) (+10,000,000) (+110,000,000) (+160,000,000) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total budgetary resources............... (8,216,343,000) (8,102,669,000) (8,155,000,000) (8,260,657,000) (+44,314,000) (+157,988,000) (+105,657,000) =========================================================================================================================================== Federal Highway Administration Limitation on general operating expenses............ (509,660,000) (652,905,000) (510,981,000) (534,846,000) (+25,186,000) (-118,059,000) (+23,865,000) Highway-related safety grants (Highway Trust Fund): (Liquidation of contract authorization)......... (11,000,000) (2,049,000) (2,049,000) (2,049,000) (-8,951,000) .................. .................. (Limitation on obligations)..................... (11,000,000) .................. .................. .................. (-11,000,000) .................. .................. Rescission of contract authority................ (-9,000,000) .................. .................. .................. (+9,000,000) .................. .................. Federal-aid highways (Highway Trust Fund): (Limitation on obligations)..................... (17,550,000,000) (17,714,000,000) (17,550,000,000) (17,650,000,000) (+100,000,000) (-64,000,000) (+100,000,000) (Exempt obligations) (sec. 310)................. (2,331,507,000) (1,314,802,000) (2,055,000,000) (2,055,000,000) (-276,507,000) (+740,198,000) .................. (Liquidation of contract authorization)......... (19,200,000,000) (19,800,000,000) (19,800,000,000) (19,800,000,000) (+600,000,000) .................. .................. Emergency appropriations........................ (300,000,000) .................. .................. .................. (-300,000,000) .................. .................. Right-of-way revolving funds (Highway Trust Fund)... .................. .................. .................. 8,000,000 +8,000,000 +8,000,000 +8,000,000 Motor carrier safety grants (Highway Trust Fund): (Liquidation of contract authorization)......... (68,000,000) (74,000,000) (74,000,000) (74,000,000) (+6,000,000) .................. .................. (Limitation on obligations)..................... (77,225,000) (85,000,000) (77,425,000) (79,000,000) (+1,775,000) (-6,000,000) (+1,575,000) Rescission of contract authority................ (-33,000,000) .................. .................. .................. (+33,000,000) .................. .................. Alameda corridor project loan program............... .................. 58,680,000 .................. .................. .................. -58,680,000 .................. Alameda corridor project loan limitation............ .................. (400,000,000) .................. .................. .................. (-400,000,000) .................. State infrastructure banks (Highway Trust Fund)..... .................. 250,000,000 .................. 250,000,000 +250,000,000 .................. +250,000,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total, Federal Highway Administration......... .................. 308,680,000 .................. 258,000,000 +258,000,000 -50,680,000 +258,000,000 (Limitations on obligations).............. (17,638,225,000) (17,799,000,000) (17,627,425,000) (17,729,000,000) (+90,775,000) (-70,000,000) (+101,575,000) (Exempt obligations)...................... (2,331,507,000) (1,314,802,000) (2,055,000,000) (2,055,000,000) (-276,507,000) (+740,198,000) .................. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total budgetary resources............... (19,969,732,000) (19,422,482,000) (19,682,425,000) (20,042,000,000) (+72,268,000) (+619,518,000) (+359,575,000) =========================================================================================================================================== National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Operations and research............................. 73,316,570 98,976,000 81,895,000 80,000,000 +6,683,430 -18,976,000 -1,895,000 Operations and research (Highway Trust Fund)........ 51,884,430 59,537,000 50,377,000 53,195,000 +1,310,570 -6,342,000 +2,818,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subtotal, Operations and research............. 125,201,000 158,513,000 132,272,000 133,195,000 +7,994,000 -25,318,000 +923,000 Highway traffic safety grants (Highway Trust Fund): (Liquidation of contract authorization)......... (155,100,000) (191,000,000) (167,100,000) (169,100,000) (+14,000,000) (-21,900,000) (+2,000,000) State and community highway safety grants (Sec. 402) (limitation on obligations)............... (127,700,000) (151,200,000) (127,700,000) (129,700,000) (+2,000,000) (-21,500,000) (+2,000,000) National Driver Register (Sec. 402) (limitation on obligations)................................ (2,400,000) (2,400,000) (2,400,000) (2,400,000) .................. .................. .................. Highway safety grants (Sec. 1003(a)(7)) (limitation on obligations).................... .................. (15,000,000) (11,000,000) (12,000,000) (+12,000,000) (-3,000,000) (+1,000,000) Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures programs (Sec. 410) (limitation on obligations) (25,000,000) (25,000,000) (26,000,000) (25,000,000) .................. .................. (-1,000,000) Rescission of contract authority................ (-56,000,000) .................. .................. .................. (+56,000,000) .................. .................. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration............................... 125,201,000 158,513,000 132,272,000 133,195,000 +7,994,000 -25,318,000 +923,000 (Limitations on obligations).............. (155,100,000) (193,600,000) (167,100,000) (169,100,000) (+14,000,000) (-24,500,000) (+2,000,000) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total budgetary resources............... (280,301,000) (352,113,000) (299,372,000) (302,295,000) (+21,994,000) (-49,818,000) (+2,923,000) =========================================================================================================================================== Federal Railroad Administration Office of the Administrator......................... 14,018,000 16,883,000 16,469,000 16,739,000 +2,721,000 -144,000 +270,000 Railroad safety..................................... 49,919,000 51,864,000 51,407,000 51,407,000 +1,488,000 -457,000 .................. Railroad research and development................... 24,550,000 24,565,000 20,341,000 20,000,000 -4,550,000 -4,565,000 -341,000 Northeast corridor improvement program.............. 115,000,000 200,000,000 .................. 200,000,000 +85,000,000 .................. +200,000,000 High-speed rail trainsets and facilities............ .................. 80,000,000 80,000,000 80,000,000 +80,000,000 .................. .................. Next generation high speed rail..................... 19,205,000 26,525,000 19,757,000 26,525,000 +7,320,000 .................. +6,768,000 Trust fund share of next generation high-speed rail (Highway Trust Fund): (Liquidation of contract authorization)......... (7,118,000) (2,855,000) (2,855,000) (2,855,000) (-4,263,000) .................. .................. (Limitation on obligations)..................... (5,000,000) .................. .................. .................. (-5,000,000) .................. .................. Alaska Railroad rehabilitation...................... 10,000,000 .................. .................. 10,000,000 .................. +10,000,000 +10,000,000 Rhode Island Rail Development....................... 1,000,000 10,000,000 4,000,000 10,000,000 +9,000,000 .................. +6,000,000 Direct loan financing program....................... .................. .................. 58,680,000 .................. .................. .................. -58,680,000 Direct loan financing program limitation............ .................. .................. (400,000,000) .................. .................. .................. (-400,000,000) Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation: Operations...................................... 305,000,000 342,000,000 342,000,000 342,000,000 +37,000,000 .................. .................. Transition costs................................ 100,000,000 .................. .................. .................. -100,000,000 .................. .................. Capital......................................... 230,000,000 296,500,000 120,000,000 250,000,000 +20,000,000 -46,500,000 +130,000,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total, Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation........................ 635,000,000 638,500,000 462,000,000 592,000,000 -43,000,000 -46,500,000 +130,000,000 =========================================================================================================================================== Total, Federal Railroad Administration........ 868,692,000 1,048,337,000 712,654,000 1,006,671,000 +137,979,000 -41,666,000 +294,017,000 (Limitations on obligations).............. (5,000,000) .................. .................. .................. (-5,000,000) .................. .................. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total budgetary resources............... (873,692,000) (1,048,337,000) (712,654,000) (1,006,671,000) (+132,979,000) (-41,666,000) (+294,017,000) =========================================================================================================================================== Federal Transit Administration Administrative expenses............................. 42,000,000 43,652,000 41,367,000 42,147,000 +147,000 -1,505,000 +780,000 Formula grants...................................... 942,925,000 221,122,000 490,000,000 218,335,000 -724,590,000 -2,787,000 -271,665,000 Formula grants (Highway Trust Fund) (limitation on obligations)....................................... (1,110,000,000) (1,930,850,000) (1,562,925,000) (1,930,850,000) (+820,850,000) .................. (+367,925,000) Operating assistance grants..................... (400,000,000) (500,000,000) (400,000,000) (400,000,000) .................. (-100,000,000) .................. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subtotal, Formula grants...................... (2,052,925,000) (2,151,972,000) (2,052,925,000) (2,149,185,000) (+96,260,000) (-2,787,000) (+96,260,000) University transportation centers................... 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 .................. .................. .................. Transit planning and research....................... 85,500,000 85,500,000 85,500,000 85,500,000 .................. .................. .................. Metropolitan planning........................... (39,500,000) (39,500,000) (39,500,000) (39,500,000) .................. .................. .................. Rural transit assistance........................ (4,500,000) (4,500,000) (4,500,000) (4,500,000) .................. .................. .................. Transit cooperative research.................... (8,250,000) (8,250,000) (8,250,000) (8,250,000) .................. .................. .................. National planning and research.................. (22,000,000) (22,000,000) (22,000,000) (22,000,000) .................. .................. .................. State planning and research..................... (8,250,000) (8,250,000) (8,250,000) (8,250,000) .................. .................. .................. National transit institute...................... (3,000,000) (3,000,000) (3,000,000) (3,000,000) .................. .................. .................. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subtotal, Transit planning and research....... (85,500,000) (85,500,000) (85,500,000) (85,500,000) .................. .................. .................. Trust fund share of expenses (Highway Trust Fund) (liquidation of contract authorization)............ (1,120,850,000) (1,920,000,000) (1,920,000,000) (1,920,000,000) (+799,150,000) .................. .................. Discretionary grants (Highway Trust Fund) (limitation on obligations): Fixed guideway modernization.................... (666,000,000) (725,000,000) (666,000,000) (725,000,000) (+59,000,000) .................. (+59,000,000) Bus and bus-related facilities.................. (333,000,000) (274,000,000) (333,000,000) (375,000,000) (+42,000,000) (+101,000,000) (+42,000,000) New starts...................................... (666,000,000) (800,000,000) (666,000,000) (800,000,000) (+134,000,000) .................. (+134,000,000) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subtotal, Discretionary grants................ (1,665,000,000) (1,799,000,000) (1,665,000,000) (1,900,000,000) (+235,000,000) (+101,000,000) (+235,000,000) Mass transit capital fund (Highway Trust Fund) (liquidation of contract authorization)............ (2,375,000,000) (2,000,000,000) (2,000,000,000) (2,300,000,000) (-75,000,000) (+300,000,000) (+300,000,000) Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority...... 200,000,000 200,000,000 200,000,000 200,000,000 .................. .................. .................. Violent crime reduction programs (Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund).............................. .................. 10,000,000 .................. .................. .................. -10,000,000 .................. =========================================================================================================================================== Total, Federal Transit Administration......... 1,276,425,000 566,274,000 822,867,000 551,982,000 -724,443,000 -14,292,000 -270,885,000 (Limitations on obligations).............. (2,775,000,000) (3,729,850,000) (3,227,925,000) (3,830,850,000) (+1,055,850,000) (+101,000,000) (+602,925,000) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total budgetary resources............... (4,051,425,000) (4,296,124,000) (4,050,792,000) (4,382,832,000) (+331,407,000) (+86,708,000) (+332,040,000) =========================================================================================================================================== Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation Operations and maintenance (Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund).............................................. 10,150,000 10,065,000 10,037,000 10,337,000 +187,000 +272,000 +300,000 =========================================================================================================================================== Research and Special Programs Administration Research and special programs....................... 23,937,000 28,169,000 23,929,000 27,675,000 +3,738,000 -494,000 +3,746,000 Hazardous materials safety...................... (12,650,000) (12,812,000) (12,772,000) (15,572,000) (+2,922,000) (+2,760,000) (+2,800,000) Emergency transportation........................ (1,022,000) (993,000) (993,000) (993,000) (-29,000) .................. .................. Research and technology......................... (3,288,000) (7,488,000) (3,323,000) (4,269,000) (+981,000) (-3,219,000) (+946,000) Program and administrative support.............. (7,388,000) (6,876,000) (6,841,000) (6,841,000) (-547,000) (-35,000) .................. Accountwide adjustment.......................... (-411,000) .................. .................. .................. (+411,000) .................. .................. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subtotal, research and special programs....... (23,937,000) (28,169,000) (23,929,000) (27,675,000) (+3,738,000) (-494,000) (+3,746,000) Pipeline safety (Pipeline Safety Fund).............. 28,750,000 31,500,000 28,460,000 28,750,000 .................. -2,750,000 +290,000 Pipeline safety (Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund).... 2,698,000 2,528,000 2,528,000 2,528,000 -170,000 .................. .................. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subtotal, Pipeline safety..................... 31,448,000 34,028,000 30,988,000 31,278,000 -170,000 -2,750,000 +290,000 Emergency preparedness grants: Emergency preparedness fund..................... 400,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 -200,000 .................. .................. (Limitation on obligations)..................... (8,890,000) .................. .................. .................. (-8,890,000) .................. .................. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total, Research and Special Programs Administration............................... 55,785,000 62,397,000 55,117,000 59,153,000 +3,368,000 -3,244,000 +4,036,000 (Limitations on obligations).............. (8,890,000) .................. .................. .................. (-8,890,000) .................. .................. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total budgetary resources............... (64,675,000) (62,397,000) (55,117,000) (59,153,000) (-5,522,000) (-3,244,000) (+4,036,000) =========================================================================================================================================== Office of Inspector General Salaries and expenses............................... 40,238,000 39,771,000 39,450,000 39,700,000 -538,000 -71,000 +250,000 =========================================================================================================================================== Bureau of Transportation Statistics Salaries and expenses............................... 2,200,000 .................. .................. .................. -2,200,000 .................. .................. Office of Airline Information (Airport and airway trust fund)........................................ .................. 3,100,000 .................. .................. .................. -3,100,000 .................. =========================================================================================================================================== Surface Transportation Board Salaries and expenses............................... .................. 3,000,000 12,344,000 12,344,000 +12,344,000 +9,344,000 .................. Offsetting Collections.......................... .................. -3,000,000 .................. .................. .................. +3,000,000 .................. =========================================================================================================================================== General Provisions Bureau of Transportation Statistics (transfer from Federal-aid Highways).............................. (20,000,000) (25,000,000) (25,000,000) (25,000,000) (+5,000,000) .................. .................. Transportation Administrative Service Center reduc- tion............................................... -7,500,000 .................. -10,000,000 -10,000,000 -2,500,000 -10,000,000 .................. DOT field office consolidation (sec. 335)........... -25,000,000 .................. .................. .................. +25,000,000 .................. .................. ICC transition (sec. 344)........................... 8,421,000 .................. .................. .................. -8,421,000 .................. .................. =========================================================================================================================================== Total, title I, Dept of Transportation (net).. 11,862,519,029 12,893,968,627 12,502,964,000 12,514,588,000 +652,068,971 -379,380,627 +11,624,000 Appropriations........................ (12,707,306,000) (12,911,780,000) (12,532,697,000) (12,528,421,000) (-178,885,000) (-383,359,000) (-4,276,000) Rescissions........................... (-844,786,971) (-17,811,373) (-29,733,000) (-13,833,000) (+830,953,971) (+3,978,373) (+15,900,000) (Limitations on obligations).............. (22,054,815,000) (23,094,372,000) (22,332,450,000) (23,214,850,000) (+1,160,035,000) (+120,478,000) (+822,400,000) (Exempt obligations)...................... (2,331,507,000) (1,314,802,000) (2,055,000,000) (2,055,000,000) (-276,507,000) (+740,198,000) .................. =========================================================================================================================================== Total budgetary resources including (limitations on obligations) and (exempt obligations)................... (36,248,841,029) (37,303,142,627) (36,890,414,000) (37,784,438,000) (+1,535,596,971) (+481,295,373) (+894,024,000) =========================================================================================================================================== TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board Salaries and expenses............................... 3,500,000 3,540,000 3,540,000 3,540,000 +40,000 .................. .................. =========================================================================================================================================== National Transportation Safety Board Salaries and expenses............................... 38,774,000 42,407,000 42,407,000 42,407,000 +3,633,000 .................. .................. Emergency fund...................................... 360,802 .................. .................. .................. -360,802 .................. .................. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total, National Transportation Safety Board... 39,134,802 42,407,000 42,407,000 42,407,000 +3,272,198 .................. .................. =========================================================================================================================================== Interstate Commerce Commission Salaries and expenses............................... 13,379,000 .................. .................. .................. -13,379,000 .................. .................. Payments for directed rail service (limitation on obligations)....................................... (475,000) .................. .................. .................. (-475,000) .................. .................. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total, Interstate Commerce Commission......... (13,854,000) .................. .................. .................. (-13,854,000) .................. .................. =========================================================================================================================================== Panama Canal Commission Panama Canal Revolving Fund: (Limitation on administrative expenses)........................... (52,741,000) .................. .................. .................. (-52,741,000) .................. .................. =========================================================================================================================================== Total, title II, Related Agencies............. 56,013,802 45,947,000 45,947,000 45,947,000 -10,066,802 .................. .................. (Limitation on obligations)............... (475,000) .................. .................. .................. (-475,000) .................. .................. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total budgetary resources............... (56,488,802) (45,947,000) (45,947,000) (45,947,000) (-10,541,802) .................. .................. =========================================================================================================================================== TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS General Provision 310............................... .................. (-41,000,000) .................. .................. .................. (+41,000,000) .................. General Provision 310(f)............................ .................. -306,000,000 .................. .................. .................. +306,000,000 .................. Sec. 338--National Civil Aviation Review Commission. .................. .................. 2,400,000 .................. .................. .................. -2,400,000 =========================================================================================================================================== Total appropriations (net).................... 11,918,532,831 12,633,915,627 12,551,311,000 12,560,535,000 +642,002,169 -73,380,627 +9,224,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ <greek-d>