Transportation Statistics: fy00 senate rpt

8/14/2019 Transportation Statistics: fy00 senate rpt

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/transportation-statistics-fy00-senate-rpt 1/181



























































































































































































































































































142

Missoula buses and bus facilities, MontanaMissouri statewide bus and bus facilities, MissouriMobile buses, AlabamaMobile waterfront terminal complex, AlabamaModesto, bus maintenance facility, CaliforniaMonterey, Monterey-Salinas buses, CaliforniaMonterey, Monterey-Salinas transit refueling facility, CaliforniaMontgomery Moulton Street intermodal center, AlabamaMontgomery Union Station intermodal center and buses, Ala-

bamaMount Vernon, buses and bus related facilities, WashingtonMukilteo multimodal terminal ferry and transit project, Wash-

ingtonNew Castle County buses and bus facilities, DelawareNew Hampshire statewide transit systems, New Hampshire

New Haven bus facility, ConnecticutNew Jersey Transit alternative fuel buses, New JerseyNew Jersey Transit jitney shuttle buses, New JerseyNew Mexico State University park and ride facilities, New Mex-

icoNew York City Midtown West 38th Street Ferry Terminal, New

YorkNew York, West 72nd St. Intermodal Station, New YorkNewark Passaic River bridge and arena pedestrian walkway,

New JerseyNewark, Morris & Essex Station access and buses, New JerseyNiagara Frontier Transportation Authority buses, New YorkNorth Carolina statewide buses and bus facilities, North Caro-

linaNorth Dakota statewide buses and bus-related facilities, North

DakotaNorth San Diego County transit district buses, CaliforniaNorth Star Borough intermodal facility, AlaskaNorthern New Mexico Transit Express/Park and Ride buses, New

MexicoNorthstar Corridor, Intermodal Facilities and buses, MinnesotaNorwich buses, ConnecticutOATS Transit, MissouriOgden Intermodal Center, UtahOhio Public Transit Association buses and bus facilities, OhioOklahoma statewide bus facilities and buses, OklahomaOlympic Peninsula International Gateway Transportation Cen-

ter, WashingtonOmaha Missouri River transit pedestrian facility, NebraskaOntonagon buses and bus facilities, MichiganOrlando Intermodal Facility, FloridaOrlando, Lynx buses and bus facilities, FloridaPalm Beach County Palmtran buses, FloridaPalmdale multimodal center, CaliforniaPark City Intermodal Center, UtahPee Dee buses and facilities, South CarolinaPenn’s Landing ferry vehicles, PennsylvaniaPennsylvania Commonwealth combined bus and facilities, Penn-

sylvania



143

Perris bus maintenance facility, CaliforniaPhiladelphia, Frankford Transportation Center, PennsylvaniaPhiladelphia, Intermodal 30th Street Station, PennsylvaniaPhiladelphia, PHLASH shuttle buses, PennsylvaniaPhiladelphia, SEPTA Center City improvements, PennsylvaniaPhiladelphia, SEPTA Paoli transportation center, PennsylvaniaPhiladelphia, SEPTA Girard Avenue intermodal transportation

centers, PennsylvaniaPhoenix bus and bus facilities, ArizonaPierce County Transit buses and bus facilities, WashingtonPittsfield intermodal center, MassachusettsPort of Corpus Christi ferry infrastructure and ferry purchase,

TexasPort of St. Bernard intermodal facility, LouisianaPortland, Tri-Met bus maintenance facility, OregonPortland, Tri-Met buses, OregonPrince William County bus replacement, VirginiaProvidence, buses and bus maintenance facility, Rhode IslandReading, BARTA Intermodal Transportation Facility, Pennsyl-

vaniaRensselaer intermodal bus facility, New YorkRhode Island Public Transit Authority buses, Rhode IslandRichmond, GRTC bus maintenance facility, VirginiaRiverside Transit Agency buses and facilities, CaliforniaRobinson, Towne Center Intermodal Facility, PennsylvaniaSacramento CNG buses, CaliforniaSalem Area Mass Ttransit System buses, OregonSalt Lake City hybrid electric vehicle bus purchase, UtahSalt Lake City International Airport transit parking and transfer

center, UtahSalt Lake City Olympics bus facilities, UtahSalt Lake City Olympics regional park and ride lots, UtahSalt Lake City Olympics transit bus loan project, UtahSan Bernardino buses, CaliforniaSan Bernardino County Mountain area Regional Transit Author-

ity fueling stations, CaliforniaSan Diego MTD buses and bus facilities, CaliforniaSan Francisco, Islais Creek maintenance facility, CaliforniaSan Joaquin buses and bus facilities, Stockton, CaliforniaSan Juan Intermodal access, Puerto RicoSan Marcos Capital Area Rural Transportation System (CARTS)

intermodal project, TexasSandy buses, OregonSanta Barbara Metropolitan Transit district bus facilities, Cali-

forniaSanta Clara Valley Transportation Authority buses and bus fa-cilities, CaliforniaSanta Clarita buses, CaliforniaSanta Cruz metropolitan bus facilities, CaliforniaSanta Fe CNG buses, New MexicoSanta Fe paratransit/computer systems, New MexicoSanta Marie organization of transportation helpers minibuses,

California





145

West Virginia Statewide Intermodal Facility and buses, West VirginiaWestchester County DOT, articulated buses, New YorkWestchester County, Bee-Line transit system fareboxes, New

YorkWestchester County, Bee-Line transit system shuttle buses, New

YorkWestminster senior citizen vans, CaliforniaWestmoreland County, Intermodal Facility, PennsylvaniaWhittier intermodal facility and pedestrian overpass, AlaskaWilkes-Barre, Intermodal Facility, PennsylvaniaWilliamsport bus facility, PennsylvaniaWisconsin statewide bus facilities and buses, WisconsinWorcester, Union Station Intermodal Transportation Center,

Massachusetts

Yuma paratransit buses, ArizonaFIXED GUIDEWAY MODERNIZATION

The Committee recommends a total of $980,400,000 for the mod-ernization of existing rail transit systems. Under TEA21 all of thefunds are distributed by formula. The following table itemizes thefiscal year 2000 rail modernization allocations by State:

Fiscal year 2000 section 5309 fixed guideway modernization Fiscal year

State 2000 budget

Arizona ................................................................................................... $1,714,915California ................................................................................................ 97,447,440Colorado .................................................................................................. 1,276,142Connecticut ............................................................................................. 35,613,122Delaware ................................................................................................. 900,963

District of Columbia .............................................................................. 41,405,152Florida .................................................................................................... 14,894,671Georgia ................................................................................................... 20,056,733Hawaii .................................................................................................... 717,140Illinois ..................................................................................................... 109,835,226Indiana ................................................................................................... 7,372,357Louisiana ................................................................................................ 2,719,194Maryland ................................................................................................ 21,651,851Massachusetts ........................................................................................ 63,230,944Michigan ................................................................................................. 449,343Minnesota ............................................................................................... 2,844,835Missouri .................................................................................................. 1,632,113New Jersey ............................................................................................. 87,109,545New York ................................................................................................ 320,395,319Ohio ......................................................................................................... 16,007,175Pennsylvania .......................................................................................... 95,594,209Puerto Rico ............................................................................................. 1,777,215Oregon .................................................................................................... 3,059,860Rhode Island .......................................................................................... 2,412,069Tennessee ............................................................................................... 79,754Texas ....................................................................................................... 5,696,889

Virginia ................................................................................................... 464,097Washington ............................................................................................ 15,992,245Wisconsin ................................................................................................ 696,482

Total ............................................................................................. 973,047,000Three-quarter percent oversight ........................................................... 7,353,000

Total appropriation ..................................................................... 980,400,000



146

NEW SYSTEMS

The bill provides $980,400,000 for new starts. These funds areavailable for major investment studies, preliminary engineering,right-of-way acquisition, project management, oversight, and con-struction for new systems and extensions. Under section 3009(g) of TEA21, there is an 8-percent statutory cap on the amount madeavailable for activities other than final design and construction—that is, alternatives analysis, environmental impact statements,preliminary engineering, major investment studies, and otherpredesign and preconstruction activities. Within the total of $980,400,000 for new systems, no more than $78,432,000 may beallocated for these activities.

The Committee has included bill language that delineates a num-ber of eligible new fixed guideway system projects under both of

these funding categories, and directs the Federal Transit Adminis-trator to submit to the congressional appropriations and author-izing committees, within 60 days of enactment of the fiscal year2000 appropriations legislation, a grant recommendation list choos-ing from among the projects listed in the appropriations bill. TheCommittee is aware that the administration’s budget request in-cludes such a list of requested projects, but believes that the De-partment should reassess its recommendations in light of the num-ber of authorized projects which have been deemed eligible forfunding, both in TEA21 and this appropriations legislation.

The following new fixed guideway systems and extensions to ex-isting systems are eligible to receive funding for final design andconstruction:

Alaska or Hawaii ferries; Albuquerque/Greater Albuquerque mass transit project; Atlanta North Line Extension; Austin Capital Metro Northwest/North Central Corridor project;Baltimore Central Light Rail double tracking project;Boston North-South Rail Link;Boston Piers Transitway phase 1;Charlotte North-South corridor transitway project;Chicago Metra commuter rail extensions;Chicago Transit Authority Ravenswood and Douglas branch line

projects;Cleveland Euclid Corridor;Dallas Area Rapid Transit North Central LRT extension;Dane County, WI commuter rail project;Denver Southeast Corridor project;Denver Southwest LRT project;Fort Lauderdale Tri-Rail commuter rail project;Galveston rail trolley extension project;Houston Regional Bus Plan;Lahaina Harbor, Maui ferries;Las Vegas Corridor/Clark County regional fixed guideway

project;Little Rock River Rail project;Long Island Rail Road East Side Access project;Los Angeles Metro Rail—MOS 3 and Eastside/Mid City corridors;



147

MARC expansion programs: Silver Spring intermodal center andPenn-Camden rail connection;Memphis Area Transit Authority medical center extension;Miami East-West Corridor project;Miami North 27th Avenue corridor;New Orleans Airport-CBD commuter rail project;New Orleans Canal Streetcar Spine;New Orleans Desire Streetcar;Newark-Elizabeth rail link project;Norfolk-Virginia Beach Corridor project;Northern New Jersey—Hudson-Bergen LRT project;Orange County Transitway project;Orlando I–4 Central Florida LRT project;Philadelphia Schuykill Valley Metro;Phoenix—Central Phoenix/East Valley Corridor;

Pittsburgh Airborne Shuttle System;Pittsburgh North Shore—Central Business District corridor;Pittsburgh State II light rail project;Port McKenzie-Ship Creek Ferry project;Portland Westside-Hillsboro Corridor project;Providence-Boston commuter rail;Raleigh-Durham—Research Triangle regional rail;Sacramento South Corridor LRT project;Salt Lake City South LRT Olympics capacity improvements;Salt Lake City South LRT project;Salt Lake City/Airport to University (West-East) light rail

project;Salt Lake City-Ogden-Provo commuter rail project;San Bernardino MetroLink extension project;San Diego Mid Coast Corridor;San Diego Mission Valley East LRT extension project;San Diego Oceanside-Escondido passenger rail project;San Francisco BART to Airport extension;San Jose Tasman LRT project;San Juan—Tren Urbano;Seattle Sound Move Link LRT project;Spokane South Valley Corridor light rail project;St. Louis—St. Clair County, Illinois LRT project;Tacoma-Seattle Sounder commuter rail project;Tampa Bay regional rail system; and theTwin Cities Transitways Corridors projects.The following new fixed guideway systems and extensions to ex-

isting systems are eligible to receive funding for alternatives anal-ysis and preliminary engineering:

Atlanta—Lindbergh Station to MARTA West Line feasibilitystudy;

Atlanta MARTA South DeKalb comprehensive transit program;Baltimore Central Downtown MIS;Bergen County, NJ/Cross County light rail project;Birmingham, Alabama transit corridor;Boston North Shore Corridor and Blue Line extension to Beverly;Boston Urban Ring project;Bridgeport intermodal corridor project;Calais, ME Branch Rail Line regional transit program;



148

Charleston, SC Monobeam corridor project;Cincinnati Northeast/Northern Kentucky rail line project;Colorado—Roaring Fork Valley Rail;Detroit—commuter rail to Detroit metropolitan airport feasibility

study;El Paso—Juarez international fixed guideway;Girdwood, Alaska commuter rail project;Harrisburg-Lancaster Capitol Area Transit Corridor 1 commuter

rail;Houston Advanced Transit Program;Indianapolis Northeast Downtown Corridor project;Jacksonville fixed guideway corridor;Johnson County, Kansas I–35 commuter rail project;Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee rail extension project;Knoxville to Memphis commuter rail feasibility study;

Los Angeles/City of Sepulveda Douglas Street Green Line connec-tion;Miami Metrorail Palmetto extension;Montpelier-St. Albans, VT commuter rail study;Nashua, NH-Lowell, MA commuter rail project;New Jersey Trans-Hudson midtown corridor study;New London waterfront access project;New York Second Avenue Subway feasibility study;Northern Indiana South Shore commuter rail project;Old Saybrook—Hartford Rail Extension;Philadelphia SEPTA commuter rail, R–3 connection—Elwyn to

Wawa;Philadelphia SEPTA Cross County Metro;Salt Lake City light rail extensions;Santa Fe/El Dorado rail link;Stamford fixed guideway connector;Stockton Altamont Commuter Rail;

Virginia Railway Express Woodbridge transit access improve-ments project;

Washington, D.C. Dulles Corridor extension project;Washington Metro Blue Line extension—Addison Road;Western Montana regional transportation/commuter rail study;

and theWilsonville to Washington County, OR connection to Westside.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

There is a total of $980,400,000 available for transit new startsfunding in fiscal year 2000. The administration’s request includes$668,183,400 for projects with current FTA full funding grantagreements with FTA, 68 percent of the total available funds. Addi-tionally, the administration’s request proposes allocating an addi-tional $216,109,600 for seven new starts projects that are currentlyin preliminary engineering or final design. These projects are ex-pected to complete the engineering and environmental review proc-ess by the start of fiscal year 2000. FTA anticipates signing fullfunding grant agreements with these seven projects some time dur-ing fiscal year 2000. The estimated federal share over the life of these new projects is $1,265,800,000. This represents a large incre-mental increase of ‘‘committed’’ federal funds that will substan-







151

Transportation Amendments of 1990, Public Law 101–551, author-ized another $1,300,000,000 in Federal capital assistance. Appro-priated funds from previous years have completed the Federal com-mitment to the construction of the 103-mile metrorail system. Nonew funds are requested for 2000.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

The Committee has included the following general provisions af-fecting transit programs:

SEC . 311. This general provision gives FTA the authority to obli-gate previously provided funds above a particular fiscal year’s obli-gation limitation.

SEC . 317. This general provision provides that capital investmentgrant funds, other than fixed guideway modernization funds, mustbe obligated within 3 years, or the associated funds will be avail-

able for expenditure and transfer to another capital investmentproject.SEC . 318. This general provision has been carried in the appro-

priations bill for many years. It allows FTA to update accountnames and transfer the associated funds to the new account struc-ture. This bookkeeping authority is necessary, given that theTransportation Equity Act has restructured the mass transit pro-gram.

SEC . 322. This general provision provides the States of Oklahomaand Vermont flexibility in the use of some of their federal transpor-tation funds.

SEC . 327. This general provision directs that discretionary fundspreviously made available for the Charleston, South Carolinamonobeam project may be used to fund any aspect of the project.

ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONThe St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (the Cor-

poration) is a wholly owned Government corporation established bythe St. Lawrence Seaway Act of May 13, 1954. The Corporation isresponsible for the operation, maintenance, and development of theUnited States portion of the St. Lawrence Seaway between Mon-treal and Lake Erie. The Corporation’s major priorities include:safety, reliability, trade development, and management account-ability.

OPERATIONS AND M AINTENANCE

(HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 1999 1 ........................................................................... $11,496,000Budget estimate, 2000 2 (mandatory) ................................................... 12,042,000Committee recommendation ................................................................. 11,496,000

1 Does not include reduction for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105–277.2 Assumes enactment of authorizing legislation.

The administration has proposed to restructure the Saint Law-rence Seaway Development Corporation as a performance-based or-ganization (PBO). In 1996, the National Performance Review firstidentified the Corporation as one of nine PBO candidates. As aPBO, the Corporation’s funding mechanism would change from an-nual appropriations to a mandatory formula-based payment that



152

primarily is determined by a five-year average of international ton-nage moved through the Seaway. Consequently, the administrationdid not seek appropriated funds for the Seaway and instead is re-questing a mandatory payment of $12,042,000 from the HarborMaintenance Trust Fund.


The bill includes an appropriation of $11,496,000 instead of themandatory payment as requested. Congress must adopt legislationauthorizing an agency to become a PBO. Neither the Committeenor the Department is aware of any current or pending congres-sional intent to act on PBO authorizing legislation. Until the enact-ment of authorizing legislation, the Committee will continue tofund the Corporation according to current law.

Although the Committee finds merit in the PBO proposal, thecommittee remains concerned about certain provisions of the legis-lation to establish the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Cor-poration as a PBO. As an organization funded through a manda-tory funding mechanism, Congress would no longer have a directrole in determining the level of funding for the Corporation or di-recting the use of its funds. This would severely undermine Con-gress’ ability to exercise its responsibility to conduct oversight overthe agency and allocate funding within broader policy and fiscalgoals, such as balancing the Federal budget. Therefore, the Com-mittee directs the administration to submit future St. LawrenceSeaway Development Corporation budget requests consistent withcurrent law until Congress takes action on PBO authorization leg-islation.

The Committee has reduced funding from the requested amountby $546,000. Since the 1999 navigation season opened on March30, vessel traffic through the Saint Lawrence Seaway has declinedby 20 percent and is projected to decline by 10 percent overall dur-ing the current navigation season. The Corporation has revised itstonnage forecast accordingly, thereby reducing its financial need.The Committee also is confident that this reduction will not affectoperations if the Corporation takes advantage of its current per-sonnel level and implements plans to achieve management savings.

RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATIONThe Research and Special Programs Administration [RSPA] was

established by the Secretary of Transportation’s organizationalchanges dated July 20, 1977, and serves as a research, analytical,and technical development arm of the Department for multimodalresearch and development, as well as special programs. Particularemphasis is given to pipeline transportation and the transportationof hazardous cargo by all modes. In 2000, resources are requestedfor the management and execution of the Offices of Hazardous Ma-terials Safety, Emergency Transportation, Pipeline Safety, programand administrative support. Funds are also requested for the emer-gency preparedness grants program. RSPA’s two reimbursable pro-grams—Transportation Safety Institute [TSI] and the Volpe Na-tional Transportation Systems Center [VNTSC]—support researchsafety and security programs for all modes of transportation.



153

RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS

Appropriations, 1999 1 ........................................................................... $29,280,000Budget estimate, 2000 2 ......................................................................... 33,340,000Committee recommendation ................................................................. 30,752,000

1 Does not reflect reduction for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105–277. Excludessupplemental funding for Y2K.

2 Includes $4,575,000 proposed fees.

The Committee has provided a total of $30,752,000 for the ‘‘Re-search and special programs’’ account, $2,588,000 less than the ad-ministration’s request.

In general, the budget constraints on this bill—which are dueboth to the highway and transit firewalls in TEA21 and the budgetcaps assumed in the Budget Resolution—dictate staffing freezes.None of the requested staffing increases have been funded.

The following table summarizes the Committee recommenda-

tions:Fiscal year 1999

enacted1Fiscal year 2000

estimateCommittee rec-ommendation

Hazardous materials safety .............................................. $16,063,000 $18,213,000 $16,960,000(FTE) ......................................................................... (122) (127) (122)

Emergency transportation ................................................. $997,000 $1,459,000 $1,275,000(FTE) . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. (7) (8) (7)

Research and technology .................................................. $3,676,000 $3,547,000 $3,297,000(FTE) . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. (13) (11) (11)

Program and administrative support ................................ $8,230,000 $10,121,000 $9,220,000(FTE) . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. (45) (46) (45)

Total, research and special programs ................ $28,966,000 $33,340,000 $30,752,000(FTE) . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . (187) (192) (187)

1 Includes $314,000 reduction for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105–277. Excludes supplemental fundingfor Y2K.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY

The Office of Hazardous Materials Safety [HMS] administers anationwide program of safety regulations to fulfill the Secretary’sduty to protect the Nation from the risks to life, health, and prop-erty that are inherent in the transportation of hazardous materialsby water, air, highway, and railroad. HMS plans, implements, andmanages the hazardous materials transportation program con-sisting of information systems, research and analysis, inspectionand enforcement, rulemaking support, training and informationdissemination, and emergency procedures.

The Committee recommends $16,960,000 for hazardous materialssafety, which is $1,250,000 less than the administration’s request.

RSPA’s office of hazardous materials safety has requested an in-crease of 9 new staff members ( ∂ 4.5 FTEs), who would be distrib-uted to headquarters, each regional inspection and enforcement of-fice, as well as two staff members who would provide support forimplementation of the Sanitary Food Transportation Act. Due tobudgetary constraints, the Committee has not provided new per-sonnel compensation and benefits funds associated with these pro-posed new positions, and has decreased the requested PC&B levelby ¥ $880,000. The Committee notes that there are currently 12

vacancies within the office of hazardous materials safety, three of



154

which are in the enforcement area. These inspection/enforcement vacancies should be filled as quickly as possible. The Committeehas also decreased the contract programs by ¥ $339,000, allowingan increase in the international standards program to a level of $81,000, but denies the requested program funding for safe foodtransportation. The Committee has also made a very slight de-crease in the agency’s request for the research and developmentprogram ( ¥ $34,000). The following shows the Committee’s rec-ommended funding levels for each of the hazardous materials officeactivities:Personnel compensation and benefits ............................................................ $9,757,000

Administrative expenses ................................................................................. 1,269,000Contract programs ........................................................................................... 3,664,000Registration program ...................................................................................... 1,070,000Research and development ............................................................................. 1,200,000

Total, office of hazardous materials safety ......................................... 16,960,000

EMERGENCY TRANSPORTATION

Emergency transportation [ET] programs provide support to theSecretary of Transportation for his statutory and administrative re-sponsibilities in the area of transportation civil emergency pre-paredness and response. This program develops and coordinatesthe Department’s policies, plans, and programs, in headquartersand the field to provide for emergency preparedness.

ET is responsible for implementing the Transportation Depart-ment’s National Security Program initiatives, including an assess-ment of the transportation implications of the changing globalthreat. The Office also coordinates civil emergency preparednessand response for transportation services during national and re-gional emergencies, across the entire continuum of crises, includingnatural catastrophes such as earthquakes, hurricanes and tor-nados, and international and domestic terrorism. The Office of Emergency Transportation develops crisis management plans tomitigate disasters and implements these plans nationally and re-gionally in an emergency.

The Committee recommends $1,275,000 for emergency transpor-tation, which is $184,000 less than the administration’s request.The administration has requested a new position for the Emer-gency Transportation office, which the Committee declines to fund.Therefore, personnel compensation and benefits are reduced$100,000 below the requested level. The research and developmentprogram is also reduced by $85,000 below the request, althoughthis level will still represent an increase of $100,000 above the en-acted program level. The following shows the Committee’s rec-ommended funding distribution for the Emergency Transportationoffice.Personnel compensation and benefits ............................................................ $745,000

Administrative expenses ................................................................................. 100,000Contract programs ........................................................................................... 280,000Research and development ............................................................................. 150,000

Total, office of emergency transportation ........................................... 1,275,000



155

RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

The Committee recommends $3,297,000 for the Office of Re-search and Technology, $250,000 less than requested by the admin-istration. The funds provided will help the Department coordinateand strengthen its responsibilities under TEA21, and will help sup-port the R&T corporate management strategy specified in the De-partment’s strategic plan, allow RSPA to support the intergovern-mental transportation research coordination responsibilities of theNational Science and Technology Council, and support a limitedintermodal research program. The reduction of $250,000 should bemade from planned ‘‘roundtable’’ outreach programs, which are notnecessary to the functions of this office.

National Environmental Respiratory Center .—The unique goal of the National Environmental Respiratory Center to research thehealth effects of combined pollutants or contaminants is relevant tothe Department of Transportation’s focus on environmental, andtherefore health, consequences of pollutants generated by transpor-tation emissions. To understand the health effects of real-world,highly complex mixtures of air contaminants, NERC will developidentical health data across several complex, man-made mixtures,including those from transportation sources. The Committee urgesDOT to collaborate with the National environmental research cen-ter on its research strategy so that national transportation systemdesign and policy has the benefit of this important data.

Reimbursable funding from Federal Highway Administration .—The budget request for the office of research and technology pro-poses to fund three full-time positions through reimbursable fund-ing from FHWA. Historically, RSPA has provided funding for twoof these positions in support of the Department’s University Trans-portation Centers (UTC) program. The UTC program has increaseddramatically in size and scope under TEA21, and RSPA’s responsi-bility to manage the grant program and conduct annual reviewshas, in turn, grown. The Committee has no objection to these threeproposed reimbursable positions, to be funded through the FederalHighway Administration by way of a reimbursable agreement be-tween the agencies. The Committee further notes that the researchand technology program has decreased its funding request by$129,000 to reflect two fewer positions being paid for by RSPA.

Advanced Vehicle Technologies Program .—The Advanced VehicleTechnologies Program (AVTP) was funded at a level of $14,000,000in fiscal year 1999. The Department of Defense Advanced ResearchPrograms Agency provided $9,000,000 for AVTP; the Federal High-way Administration provided $5,000,000 from its limitation on gen-

eral operating expenses. This year, the administration has pro-posed funding the program at a level of $20,000,000, utilizing fundsthat are authorized in section 1218 of TEA21 for Magnetic Levita-tion technology deployment, and transferring them to programs au-thorized in section 5111 of the Act (the Advanced Vehicle Tech-nologies Program). The Committee strongly objects to this proposedtransfer. No funds are provided for the AVTP in this Act.



156

PROGRAM AND ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

The program support function provides legal, financial, manage-ment, and administrative support to the operating offices withinRSPA. These support activities include executive direction (Officeof the Administrator), program and policy support, civil rights andspecial programs, legal services and support, and management andadministration.

The Committee has provided $9,220,000 for program and admin-istrative support, $901,000 less than the adminstration’s request.The administration has requested two new positions for RSPAmanagement and administration—a new Chief Information Officer,and a senior contracting specialist. The Committee does not ap-prove these requested new positions, and has reduced the per-sonnel compensation and benefits request $100,000 below the re-quested level. Administrative expenses are also reduced below therequest ( ¥ $407,000), as are contract programs ( ¥ $393,000). Be-cause the information officer position is not approved, the informa-tion resources management program is cut $235,000 below the re-quested level, and the budget and financial management programis reduced very slightly below the requested level ( ¥ $28,000). TheCommittee has not provided the requested funding for the Garrett

A. Morgan Technology and Transportation Futures program(¥ $200,000). The Committee believes that there are many nationaleducation programs already in place that encourage and enhancemath, science, and technology literacy, and the Committee is un-aware of an imminent shortage of engineers and other professionsin the transportation industries. The following shows the Commit-tee’s recommended funding distribution for RSPA program support:Personnel compensation and benefits ............................................................ $4,820,000

Administrative expenses ................................................................................. 3,300,000Contract programs ........................................................................................... 1,100,000

Total, program and administrative support ....................................... 9,220,000

P IPELINE S AFETY

(PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

(OILSPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND)

Pipeline safetyfund Trust fund Total

Appropriations, 19991 2 .................................................... $30,400,000 $4,248,000 $34,648,000Budget estimate, 2000 ..................................................... 33,939,000 4,248,000 38,187,000Committee recommendation2 ........................................... 31,400,000 4,704,000 36,104,000

1 Does not reflect reduction of $210,000 for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105–277. Does not includesupplemental funding of $150,000 for Y2K.

2

Pipeline safety funding includes $1,400,000 from reserve fund balances.The Research and Special Programs Administration is also re-

sponsible for the Department’s Pipeline Safety Program. This activ-ity is largely financed by user fees assessed to the pipeline opera-tors and by fees paid to the oilspill liability trust fund [OSLTF].The Pipeline Safety Program promotes the safe, reliable, and envi-ronmentally sound transportation of natural gas and hazardous liq-uids by pipeline. This national program regulates the design, con-



157

struction, operation, maintenance, and emergency response proce-dures pertaining to gas and hazardous liquids pipeline systems andliquefied natural gas facilities. Also included is research and devel-opment to support the Pipeline Safety Program and grants-in-aidto State agencies that conduct a Pipeline Safety Program.

Pipeline safety reserve fund .—The Committee recommends$1,400,000 to be derived from amounts previously collected in pipe-line user fees from interstate liquid and natural gas transmissioncompanies, which are maintained in a reserve fund by RSPA. Thecurrent balance of the pipeline safety reserve fund (as of April 1)is $15,367,538, but over the course of the year, some program costswill be warranted out. The fund takes in user fee collections, paysprogram costs, and also makes adjustments to collections due toover- or underpayments, so the balance varies over the course of each fiscal year. RSPA maintains that a reserve fund balance of at

least $11,000,000 is necessary to sustain operations until fees canbe collected to replenish the fund. The Committee believes it is ap-propriate to drawdown against this balance as long as the$11,000,000 level is not breached. The Committee agrees with theauthorizing committees and industry that the fiscal year 1999 capon the portion of the OPS budget that can be raised through pipe-line safety user fees—$30,000,000—should not be exceeded.

Oilspill liability trust fund. —The Committee recommends$4,704,000 to be derived from the oilspill liability trust fund for im-plementation of the Office of Pipeline Safety [OPS] responsibilitiesunder the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 [OPA], $456,000 more than theadministration’s request. The following table summarizes the Com-mittee recommendations:

ProgramFiscal year— Committee rec-

ommendation21999 enacted1 2 2000 estimate

Operating expenses ........................................................... $11,655,000 $13,180,000 $12,821,000Information and analysis .................................................. 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000Risk assessment/technical studies ................................... 1,200,000 1,475,000 1,200,000Compliance ........................................................................ 300,000 300,000 300,000Training and information dissemination .......................... 921,000 1,121,000 921,000Emergency notification ...................................................... 100,000 100,000 100,000Public education ................................................................ 400,000 200,000 400,000Risk management and program evaluation ..................... ....................... 5,000 .......................Implement Oil Pollution Act .............................................. 2,443,000 2,443,000 2,443,000Research and development ............................................... 1,719,000 2,144,000 1,719,000State grants ...................................................................... 13,000,000 13,519,000 12,500,000Risk management grants .................................................. 500,000 500,000 500,000One-call grants ................................................................. 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000Damage prevention grants ................................................ ....................... 1,000,000 1,000,000

Totals ................................................................... 34,438,000 38,187,000 36,104,0001 Includes reduction of $210,000 for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105–277. Excludes $150,000 supple-

mental funding for Y2K.2 Includes $1,400,000 from uncommitted balances in the reserve fund.

Operating expenses .—The administration did not request anynew positions for the Office of Pipeline Safety; however, the Com-mittee’s recommendation includes an increase of $1,166,000 in ad-ministrative expenses and personnel cost-of-living adjustments andmerit increases.



158

Public education .—The Committee recommends $400,000 fordamage prevention public education activities, to accelerate workon the evolving one-call systems public education campaign. Thisrepresents a $200,000 increase above the requested level. Thesefunds will be used to leverage private sector funds to advance thenational one-call campaign.

The Committee is pleased that the Office of Pipeline Safety(OPS) consulted with numerous parties concerned with preventingdamage to underground utilities in drafting the ‘‘Best Practices’’study required by TEA21. By providing leadership to over 150working volunteers representing one-call systems, underground fa-cility operators, excavators, railroads, and Federal and state agen-cies, preventing deaths, injuries, property damage and serviceinterruptions. The Committee believes that this group effort,dubbed ‘‘Common Ground’’, has the potential to serve as a basis for

a self-sustaining entity that can advance underground damage prevention by identifying and encouraging best practices, providingbadly needed public education, and collecting and disseminating in-formation on damage to underground utilities. The Committee di-rects OPS to use existing resources to support the formation andinitial operation of a non-profit organization that will further thework of ‘‘Common Ground’’ and implement other innovative ap-proaches to advance underground damage prevention.

State grants .—Due to stringent budgetary constraints, the Com-mittee has reduced the funding level for state safety grants belowthe level provided in fiscal year 1999, from $13,000,000 to$12,500,000.

Damage prevention grants .—The Committee has included$1,000,000 in funding, to be derived from the uncommitted bal-ances in the reserve fund, for RSPA’s new damage preventiongrants program. Reducing outside force damage has long been theoffice’s top-ranked solution to improving pipeline safety. This newgrant program will promote best practices to prevent damage topipelines and other underground infrastructure. RSPA will be hold-ing a public meeting on June 30 to solicit input on criteria for thesegrants and on the most effective means to encourage best practicesin one-call notification systems and other of damage prevention ef-forts.

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANTS

(EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND)

Appropriations, 1999 ............................................................................. $200,000Budget estimate, 2000 ........................................................................... 200,000Committee recommendation ................................................................. 200,000

The hazardous materials transportation law (title 49 U.S.C. 5101et seq.) requires RSPA to: (1) develop and implement a reimburs-able emergency preparedness grants program; (2) monitor publicsector emergency response training and planning and provide tech-nical assistance to States, territories, and Indian tribes; and (3) de-

velop and update periodically a national training curriculum foremergency responders. These activities are financed by receipts re-ceived from the hazardous materials shipper and carrier registra-tion fees, which are placed in the emergency preparedness fund.



159

The hazardous materials transportation law provides permanentappropriations for the emergency preparedness fund for planningand training grants, monitoring and technical assistance, and foradministrative expenses. Appropriations, also from the emergencypreparedness fund, provide for the training curriculum for emer-gency responders.


The administration has proposed increasing the annual level of funding under the Hazmat Registration Program from the currentprogram level of $8,000,000 to $14,300,000. Under the current reg-istration program, an annual flat fee of $300 is assessed on carriersthat transport: radioactive materials (in any quantity); class A orclass B explosives (over 25 kilograms); extremely toxic inhalants(more than 1 liter per package); hazardous material in bulk pack-aging over 3,500 gallons or 468 cubic feet; or placarded hazardousmaterials in shipments of over 5,000 pounds. This affects approxi-mately 27,000 shippers and carriers on the Nation’s highways, rail-roads, waterways, and airways. Most of the fees collected under theregistration program are used to make training and planninggrants to States to improve emergency response to hazardous mate-rials incidents.

Under the administration’s proposal, the overall funding for thisprogram would be increased by $6,300,000. In order to pay for thisincrease, the administration proposes to raise the fee level andbroaden the base of registrants. There is a notice of proposed rule-making pending that would increase the hazmat carrier fees. Theproposed rule would increase the number of carriers required toregister from about 27,000 to 45,000, and would increase the an-

nual registration fee from $300 to $2,000 for shippers and carriersthat are not ‘‘small businesses’’ under Small Business criteria.Small businesses required to register would continue to pay $300in annual fees.

The Committee is aware that there are some industry concernsabout the proposed expansion and increase in the registration pro-gram. RSPA is holding a public meeting on the proposed rule May25, 1999, RSPA is seeking authorization to fund both the haz-ardous materials grant program and the agency’s entire hazardousmaterials safety program from the increased and expanded reg-istration program (the authorized levels for the two programswould total more than $32,000,000). The Committee believes thata 400-percent increase, from the current $8,000,000 hazmat reg-istration program to a potential $32,000,000 program may rep-resent an unfair burden on the hazardous materials transport com-munity. However, the Committee has not included bill languagethat would set a ceiling on fee collections for fiscal year 2000 atthis stage of the appropriations cycle, but will wait until the indus-try has had a chance to comment on this new proposed rule.



160

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERALS ALARIES AND E XPENSES

Appropriations, 1999 1 ........................................................................... $43,495,000Budget estimate, 2000 ........................................................................... 44,840,000Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2 48,000,000

1 Does not include reduction of $179,000 for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105–277, and transfer of $800,000 from the FTA pursuant to Public Law 105–277.

2 Includes transfers.

The Inspector General Act of 1978 established the Office of In-spector General [OIG] as an independent and objective organiza-tion, with a mission to: (1) conduct and supervise audits and inves-tigations relating to the programs and operations of the Depart-ment; (2) provide leadership and recommend policies designed topromote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the administra-tion of programs and operations; (3) prevent and detect fraud,waste, and abuse; and (4) keep the Secretary and Congress cur-rently informed regarding problems and deficiencies.

OIG is divided into two major functional units: the Office of As-sistant Inspector General for Auditing and the Office of AssistantInspector General for Investigations. The assistant inspectors gen-eral for auditing and investigations are supported by headquartersand regional staff.

The Committee recommends $48,000,000. The recommendedlevel includes funding for the inspector general to conduct theiroversight mission mandated under the Inspector General Act, sup-port the Department’s priorities in the areas of safety, strategic in-

vestment in transportation infrastructure, and commonsense gov-ernment, to provide an objective and credible voice on other issuesof modal and Departmentwide concern and to respond to emergingissues of congressional concern.

The Inspector General is to be commended for the timeliness andquality of the Office of Inspector General work product. Unlikemost of the agencies in the Department, the OIG delivers reportsand communications by the requested time, addresses the ques-tions or issues concerned, and generally illuminate issues for con-gressional, public, or executive branch consideration. The Com-mittee recommendation reflects the value the Committee places onthe OIG contribution.

Disadvantaged business enterprises .—The Committee directs theDepartment of Transportation Inspector General to report to theSenate and House Appropriations Subcommittees on Transpor-tation not later than 60 days after enactment of this bill on thepercentage of businesses which had been certified as disadvantaged

business enterprises (DBE) but are no longer eligible under thenew regulations; the range and average of the lengths of time thatbusinesses have been certified as DBE’s; the average percentage of employees at DBE firms who are disadvantaged compared to theaverage percentage at non-DBE firms and the range of percent-ages; and, the part-time and full-time mix at DBE firms.



161

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARDS ALARIES AND E XPENSES

Appropriation Required offsettingcollections

Allowed offsettingcollections

Total potentialfunding

Appropriations, 19991 .............. $13,400,000 ........................... $2,600,000 $16,000,000Budget estimate, 2000 ............. .......................... ($17,000,000) .......................... (17,000,000)Committee recommendation ..... 15,400,000 (1,600,000) .......................... 17,000,000

1 Excludes reduction of $10,000 pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105–277.

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 thesurface transportation industry, the act abolished the ICC, elimi-nated certain functions that had previously been implemented bythe ICC, transferred core rail and certain other functions to theBoard, and transferred motor licensing and certain other motorfunctions to the FHWA. The Board is specifically responsible forthe regulation of the rail and pipeline industries and certain non-licensing regulation of motor carriers and water carriers. Moreover,the Board, through its exemption authority, is able to promote de-regulation administratively on a case-by-case basis. Rail reformsmade by the Staggers Rail Act of 1980 also have been continued.

The administration’s fiscal year 2000 program request is$17,000,000 to perform key functions under the ICCTA, includingrail rate reasonableness oversight; the processing of rail consolida-tions, abandonments, and other restructuring proposals; and theresolution of motor carrier undercharge matters. Under the admin-istration’s proposal this amount would be derived solely from userfees collected pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 9701 from the beneficiaries of

the Board’s activities. However, the Committee is convinced thatfully fee financing the STB is not a viable option for fiscal year1999. Such a proposal would require enactment of legislation andpromulgation of new rules that are unlikely to be in place in timeto ensure undisrupted funding for the Board. A possible legislative

vehicle for such a user fee-based structure would be the reauthor-ization legislation which the authorizing committees may considerlater this year.

The Committee has provided $15,400,000 for activities of theBoard, including statutory liability for severance payments. Thisamount will be augmented by the collection of $1,600,000 in userfees. The Board anticipates collecting up to $1,200,000 from thesefees. Bill language has been included to assure that fees receivedin excess of $1,600,000 shall remain available to the Board butshall not be available for obligation until October 1, 2000.

The Committee’s recommendation will fund a total of 140 full-time staff equivalent (FTE) positions, if the Board collects the full$1,600,000 in user fees. This increase in FTE above the currentlevel of 135 will provide the Board with the discretion to hire staff in specific offices to replace tenured, retirement-eligible staff priorto their anticipated retirement date. Between now and September30, 2002, 38 percent of the Board’s employees will be eligible for

voluntary retirement. The Committee believes that it is importantto allow this FTE ceiling increase to give the Board flexibility to



162

fill positions before the anticipated retirement dates of these moresenior staff.



(163)

TITLE II—RELATED AGENCIES

ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERSCOMPLIANCE BOARD

S ALARIES AND E XPENSES

Appropriations, 1999 1 ........................................................................... $3,847,000Budget estimate, 2000 ........................................................................... 4,633,000Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,500,000

1 Does not include $60,000 emergency funding for Y2K conversion.

The Committee recommends $4,500,000 for the operations of the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board,$133,000 less than funding level requested by the administration.

The Architectural and Transportation Barriers ComplianceBoard (the Access Board) is the lead Federal Agency promoting ac-cessibility for all handicapped persons. The Access Board was reau-thorized in the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992, PublicLaw 102–569. Under this authorization, the Access Board’s func-tions are to ensure compliance with the Architectural Barriers Actof 1968, and to develop guidelines for and technical assistance toindividuals and entities with rights or duties under titles II and IIIof the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Access Board estab-lishes minimum accessibility guidelines and requirements for pub-lic accommodations and commercial facilities, transit facilities and

vehicles, State and local government facilities, children’s environ-ments, and recreational facilities. The Access Board also providestechnical assistance to Government agencies, public and private or-ganizations, individuals, and businesses on the removal of accessi-bility barriers.

The Committee’s recommendation provides adequate funding tosupport 30.25 FTE, one FTE less than the fiscal year 1999 staffinglevel, consistent with the Board’s budget request.

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

S ALARIES AND E XPENSES

Appropriations, 1999 1 ........................................................................... $53,473,000Budget estimate, 2000 2 ......................................................................... 47,000,000Committee recommendation ................................................................. 51,500,000

1 Excludes $2,300,000 in emergency appropriations.2

Excludes the President’s budget request for $10,000,000 in new user fees.The Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 established the Na-

tional Transportation Safety Board [NTSB] as an independent Fed-eral agency to promote transportation safety by conducting inde-pendent accident investigations. In addition, the act authorizes theBoard to make safety recommendations, conduct safety studies, andoversee safety activities of other Government agencies involved in



164

transportation. The Board also reviews appeals of adverse actionsby the Department of Transportation with respect to airmen andseamen certificates and licenses.

The Board has no regulatory authority over the transportationindustry. Thus, its effectiveness depends on its reputation for im-partial and accurate accident reports, realistic and feasible safetyrecommendations, and on public confidence in its commitment toimproving transportation safety.


Due to budget constraints, the bill includes $51,500,000 for theSafety Board, the same level of funding that was enacted fiscalyear 1999 with the exception of costs associated with renting hang-ar space in Calverton, New York as discussed below. Appropria-tions to the Safety Board have increased by 26 percent since fiscalyear 1997, primarily because of prolonged investigations of thetragic crashes of USAir Flight 427 and TWA Flight 800. The Com-mittee expects the NTSB to continue to investigate accidents andissue safety recommendations and has provided the Safety Boardwith the flexibility to manage the recommended funding level bycontrolling discretionary expenditures.

Calverton facility .—The Committee is concerned about the cost torent hangar space which houses the 94-foot-long reconstruction of the fuselage of the TWA Flight 800 plane wreckage. The SafetyBoard has spent $13,600,000 to rent the Calverton facility and thebudget estimate includes $3,200,000 to cover rent for the first sixmonths of fiscal year 2000. In the fiscal year 1999 supplementalappropriations conference report, the Committee insisted on thestatement that ‘‘the conferees do not plan to continue funding therental expenses at the Calverton facility in future years. Accord-

ingly, the Committee has deleted funding for the rental and directsthe Safety Board to develop alternatives for housing the TWAFlight 800 wreckage, including options at ‘‘no cost to the govern-ment.’’ The report is request by August 1, 1999.

User Fees .—The Committee denies the request to collect$10,000,000 in user fees. It is the Committee’s understanding thatthe Safety Board does not have the authority or the resources tocollect user fees. Furthermore, the Committee is concerned that re-quiring the NTSB to levy fees on the industries it investigates willundermine industry confidence in the independence of the SafetyBoard. The Committee, however, would entertain proposals tocharge foreign governments for the costs incurred during investiga-tions conducted at the request of that government, if consistentwith U.S. foreign policy goals.



(165)

TITLE III—GENERAL PROVISIONSThe Committee concurs with the general provisions that apply to

the Department of Transportation and related agencies as proposedin the budget, with some changes, deletions, and additions. Theseare noted below:

SEC . 305. Modifies a requested provision to prohibit the use of funds for the salaries and expenses of more than 100 political andPresidential appointees to the Department of Transportation.

SEC . 310. This provision regarding the allocation of Federal-aid

Highway Program funds is continued with modifications to reflectthe passage of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century[TEA21].

SEC . 315. Retains provision prohibiting the use of funds to awardmultiyear contracts for production end items that include certainspecified provisions. The administration proposed deleting this pro-

vision.SEC . 316. Includes provision that prohibits the use of funds in

this act for activities designed to influence Congress on legislationor appropriations except through proper, official channels.

SEC . 319. Includes provision which the administration had re-quested be deleted that reduces the funds provided for the Trans-portation Administrative Service Center.

SEC . 321. Includes provision which prevents any state from re-ceiving more than 12.5 percent of the aggregate transit formulaand capital investment grants national program funds.

SEC . 322. Includes a provision allowing the States of Oklahomaand Vermont flexible use of transportation funds.

SEC . 324. Includes provision which the administration had re-quested be deleted that limits the amount available for advisorycommittees to $1,000,000.

SEC . 327. Includes provision similar to language carried in thefiscal year 1999 appropriations bill which allows capital transitgrant funds to be used for any aspect of Charleston, SC monobeamcorridor project.

SEC . 329. Modifies a requested provision regarding rebates, re-funds, incentive payments, and minor fees received by the Depart-ment from travel management centers, charge card programs, andother sources, making such funds available until December 31,2000.

SEC . 331. Modifies provision requested by the administration re-lating to funding for the Amtrak Reform Council.SEC . 332. Includes provision which the administration had re-quested be deleted, which was carried in previous appropriationsacts, providing a limitation on transfers of funds among the officesof the Office of the Secretary of Transportation.

SEC . 333. Includes a provision which the administration had re-quested be deleted, which prohibits the Department of Transpor-



166

tation from creating ‘‘peanut-free zones’’ aboard domestic aircraft,absent fulfilling certain conditions.SEC . 334. Includes a provision which is similar to language car-

ried in the fiscal year 1999 transportation appropriations act, relat-ing to the execution of certain Olympics-related projects.

SEC . 335. Includes a provision which requires the Federal Tran-sit Administration to inform the Committees on Appropriationswhen the agency approves a new full funding grant agreement.

SEC . 336. Includes a provision which is similar to language car-ried in the fiscal year 1999 transportation appropriations act, relat-ing to state highway funding flexibility.

SEC . 337. Includes a provision which allows the Department of Transportation to enter into a fractional aircraft ownership dem-onstration.

SEC . 338. Includes a provision regarding the terms of a land con-

veyance of property held by the United States Coast Guard.SEC . 339. Includes a provision which prevents the distribution of personal data and photographs from drivers licenses without ex-press written consent of the individual.

SEC . 340. Includes a provision providing for the completion of theNational Advanced Driving Simulator.

SEC . 341. Includes a provision making technical changes to ahighway project authorized in Public Law 102–240.



(167)

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI, OF THESTANDING RULES OF THE SENATE

Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports on gen-eral appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment tothe House bill ‘‘which proposes an item of appropriation which isnot made to carry out the provisions of an existing law, a treatystipulation, or an act or resolution previously passed by the Senateduring that session.’’United States Coast Guard:

Operating expenses ........................................................................ $2,772,000,000 Acquisition, construction, and improvements .............................. 370,426,000Environmental compliance and restoration ................................. 12,450,000Retired pay ...................................................................................... 730,327,000Reserve training ............................................................................. 72,000,000Research, development, test, and evaluation ............................... 17,000,000

Federal Aviation Administration:Operations ....................................................................................... 5,857,450,000Facilities and equipment ............................................................... 2,045,652,000Research, engineering, and development ..................................... 150,000,000Grants-in-aid to airports ................................................................ 1,300,000,000

Federal Railroad Administration: Railroad safety .............................. 91,789,000St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation ................................ 11,496,000Research and Special Programs Administration: Research and Spe-

cial Programs ...................................................................................... 30,752,000Surface Transportation Board .............................................................. 17,000,000

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI, OF THESTANDING RULES OF THE SENATE

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, the Committee orderedreported en bloc, an original fiscal year 2000 Energy and Water De-

velopment Appropriations bill, and S. 1143, an original fiscal year2000 Transportation Appropriations bill, both subject to amend-ment and subject to the section 302 budget allocation, by a re-corded vote of 27–1, a quorum being present. The vote was as fol-lows:

Yeas NaysChairman Stevens Mrs. FeinsteinMr. CochranMr. SpecterMr. DomeniciMr. BondMr. GortonMr. McConnellMr. BurnsMr. ShelbyMr. GreggMr. BennettMr. CampbellMr. Craig



168

Mrs. HutchisonMr. KylMr. ByrdMr. InouyeMr. HollingsMr. LeahyMr. LautenbergMr. HarkinMs. MikulskiMr. ReidMr. KohlMrs. MurrayMr. DorganMr. Durbin

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THESTANDING RULES OF THE SENATE

Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports ona bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute or partof 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 andof the statute or part thereof proposed to be amended, showing bystricken-through type and italics, parallel columns, or other appro-priate typographical devices the omissions and insertions whichwould be made by the bill or joint resolution if enacted in the formrecommended by the committee.’’

In compliance with this rule, the following changes in existinglaw proposed to be made by the bill are shown as follows: existinglaw to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets; new matter is

printed in italic; and existing law in which no change is proposedis shown in roman.

TITLE 49—TRANSPORTATION* * * * * * *

SUBTITLE III—GENERAL AND INTERMODAL PROGRAMS* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 53—MASS TRANSPORTATION* * * * * * *

§ 5309. Discretionary grants and loans(a) * * *

* * * * * * *(g) Letters of Intent, Full Financing Grant Agreements, andEarlySystems Work Agreements

(1)(A) The Secretary of Transportation may issue a letter of in-tent to an applicant announcing an intention to obligate, for aproject under this section, an amount from future available budgetauthority specified in law that is not more than the amount stipu-lated as the financial participation of the Secretary in the project.



169

The amount shall be sufficient to complete at least an operable seg-ment when a letter is issued for a fixed guideway project.(B) At least 30 days before issuing a letter under subparagraph

(A) of this paragraph, the Secretary of Transportation shall notifyin writing the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking,Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the House and Sen-ate Committees on Appropriations of the proposed issuance of theletter.

* * * * * * *

INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT OF 1991,PUBLIC L AW 102–240

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

* * * * * * *SEC. 1107. INNOVATIVE PROJECTS.

(a) * * *(b) AUTHORIZATION OF PROJECTS .—The Secretary is authorized

to carry out the innovative projects described in this subsection.Subject to subsection (c), there is authorized to be appropriated outof the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account)for fiscal years 1992 through 1997 to carry out each such projectthe amount listed for each such project:

CITY/STATE INNOVATIVE PROJECTS AMOUNT

inmillions

1. Cadiz, Ohio ............................... Construction of 4-lane Limited Access Highway from Cadiz,OH to Interstate 70 Inter-change at St. Clarisville, OHalong U.S. Rt. 250 .................. 20.0

* * * * * * *

6. Maryland .................................. øConstruction of a replacementbridge at Watervale Bridge#63, Harford County, MD ¿

For improvements to Bottom Road Bridge, Vinegar Hill Road Bridge and South-ampton Road Bridge, HarfordCounty, MD ............................. 1.1

* * * * * * *TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY , P UBLIC L AW

105–178

TITLE I—FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

* * * * * * *



170

Subtitle A—Authorizations and Programs

* * * * * * *SEC. 1212. MISCELLANEOUS.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *(g) P ROJECT FLEXIBILITY FOR MINNESOTA AND N EW J ERSEY .—

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds allocated for aproject in the State of Minnesota or the State of New Jersey undersection 117 of title 23, United States Code, may be obligated forany other project in the State for which funds are so allocated; ex-cept that the total amount of funds authorized for any project forwhich funds are so allocated shall not be reduced.

* * * * * * *

TITLE III—FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS

SEC. 3021. PILOT PROGRAM FOR INTERCITY RAIL INFRASTRUCTUREINVESTMENT FROM MASS TRANSIT ACCOUNT OF HIGH-WAY TRUST FUND.

(a) I N GENERAL .—The Secretary shall establish a ø single-State ¿ pilot program to determine the benefits of using funds fromthe Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund for intercitypassenger rail. ø Any assistance provided to the State of Oklahomaor the State of Vermont under sections 5307 and 5311 of title 49,United States Code ¿ The funds made available to the State of Okla-homa and the State of Vermont to carry out sections 5307 and 5311of title 49, United States Code and sections 133 and 149 of title 23,United States Code , during fiscal years 1998 through 2003 may beused for capital improvements to, and operating assistance for,intercity passenger rail service.

(b) REPORT .—(1) I N GENERAL .—Not later than October 1, 2002, the Sec-

retary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation andInfrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Com-mittee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senatea report on the pilot program established under this section.

(2) CONTENTS .—The report submitted under paragraph (1)shall include—

(A) an evaluation of the effect of the pilot program onalternative forms of transportation within the State of Oklahoma and the State of Vermont;

(B) an evaluation of the effect of the program on oper-ators of mass transportation and their passengers;

(C) a calculation of the amount of Federal assistanceprovided under this section transferred for the provision of intercity passenger rail service; and

(D) an estimate of the benefits to intercity passengerrail service, including the number of passengers served,



171

the number of route miles covered, and the number of lo-calities served by intercity passenger rail service.(c) G RANT R EQUIREMENTS .—Notwithstanding any other provi-

sion of law, the Amtrak employees employed in the railroad pas-senger service authorized by this section shall be afforded the samelabor protections afforded other Amtrak employees under the termsof their employment contracts.

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

Committeeallocation Amount of bill

Committeeallocation Amount of bill

Comparison of amounts in the bill with Com-mittee allocations to its subcommittees ofamounts in 2000: Subcommittee on Transpor-tation and Related Agencies:

General purpose discretionary ..................... 12,034 12,034 14,2261 14,226Highways ...................................................... .................... .................... 24,574 24,574Mass transit ................................................ .................... .................... 4,117 4,114Violent crime reduction ............................... .................... .................... .................... ....................Mandatory ...... ........... ............ ........... ........... . 721 721 717 717

Projections of outlays associated with the rec-ommendation:

2000 ............................................................. .................... .................... ....................2 17,5202001 ............................................................. .................... .................... .................... 16,4112002 ............................................................. .................... .................... .................... 7,3582003 ............................................................. .................... .................... .................... 3,4562004 and future year .................................. .................... .................... .................... 3,501

Financial assistance to State and local govern-ments for 2000 in bill ..................................... NA 1,204 NA 8,228

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.2 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

NA: Not applicable.





















Transportation Statistics: fy00 senate rpt

Documents