43-429 PDF
2d Session
110-418
TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2009
| July 14, 2008- Ordered to be printed | |
| Mrs. MURRAY, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the following | |
| REPORT | |
| [To accompany S. 3261] |
The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 3261) making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes, reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.
| Amounts of new budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 2009 | |
| Total of bill as reported to the Senate | $53,325,000,000 |
| Amount of 2008 appropriations | 52,979,000,000 |
| Amount of 2009 budget estimate | 55,022,920,000 |
| Bill as recommended to Senate compared to-- | |
| 2008 appropriations | +346,000,000 |
| 2009 budget estimate | -1,697,920,000 |
| C O N T E N T S | Page | |
| Program, Project, and Activity | 3 | |
| Reprogramming Guidelines | 3 | |
| Congressional Budget Justifications | 4 | |
| Title I: Department of Transportation: | Office of the Secretary | |
| 6 | ||
| Federal Aviation Administration | ||
| 24 | ||
| Federal Highway Administration | ||
| 67 | ||
| Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration | ||
| 83 | ||
| National Highway Traffic Safety Administration | ||
| 94 | ||
| Federal Railroad Administration | ||
| 107 | ||
| Federal Transit Administration | ||
| 122 | ||
| Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation | ||
| 132 | ||
| Maritime Administration | ||
| 133 | ||
| Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration | ||
| 139 | ||
| Research and Innovative Technology Administration | ||
| 144 | ||
| Bureau of Transportation Statistics | ||
| 145 | ||
| Office of Inspector General | ||
| 145 | ||
| Surface Transportation Board | ||
| 147 | ||
| General Provisions--Department of Transportation | ||
| 147 | ||
| Title II: Department of Housing and Urban Development: | Executive Direction | |
| 151 | ||
| Adminisration, Operations and Management | ||
| 152 | ||
| Personnel Compensation and Benefits | ||
| 153 | ||
| Public and Indian Housing | ||
| 157 | ||
| Community Planning and Development | ||
| 167 | ||
| Housing Programs | ||
| 182 | ||
| Federal Housing Administration | ||
| 185 | ||
| Government National Mortgage Association | ||
| 187 | ||
| Policy Development and Research | ||
| 187 | ||
| Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity | ||
| 188 | ||
| Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control | ||
| 191 | ||
| Management and Administration: | Working Capital Fund | |
| 192 | ||
| Office of Inspector General | ||
| 192 | ||
| Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight | ||
| 193 | ||
| Administrative Provisions | ||
| 193 | ||
| Title III: Independent Agencies: | Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board | |
| 196 | ||
| Federal Maritime Commission | ||
| 197 | ||
| National Transportation Safety Board | ||
| 197 | ||
| Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation | ||
| 199 | ||
| United States Interagency Council on Homelessness | ||
| 201 | ||
| Title IV: General Provisions This Act | 203 | |
| Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of the Sen- ate | 204 | |
| Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of the Senate | 205 | |
| Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate | 206 | |
| Budgetary Impact Statement | 215 | |
| Disclosure of Congressionally Directed Spending Items | 215 | |
| Comparative Statement | 237 |
PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY
During fiscal year 2008, 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' [PPA] 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, shall be applied equally to each budget item that is listed under said account 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.
REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES
The Committee includes a provision (sec. 405) establishing the authority by which funding available to the agencies funded by this Act may be reprogrammed for other purposes. The provision specifically requires the advanced approval of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations of any proposal to reprogram funds that: (1) creates a new program; (2) eliminates a program, project, or activity [PPA]; (3) increases funds or personnel for any PPA for which funds have been denied or restricted by the Congress; (4) proposes to redirect funds that were directed in such reports for a specific activity to a different purpose; (5) augments an existing PPA in excess of $5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less; (6) reduces an existing PPA by $5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less; or (7) creates, reorganizes, or restructures offices different from the congressional budget justifications or the table at the end of the Committee report, whichever is more detailed.
The Committee retains the requirement that each agency submit an operating plan to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations not later than 60 days after enactment of this act to establish the baseline for application of reprogramming and transfer authorities provided in this act. Specifically, each agency should provide a table for each appropriation with columns displaying the budget request; adjustments made by Congress; adjustments for rescissions, if appropriate; and the fiscal year enacted level. The table shall delineate the appropriation both by object class and by PPA. The report must also identify items of special congressional interest.
The Committee expects the agencies and bureaus to submit reprogramming requests in a timely manner and to provide a thorough explanation of the proposed reallocations, including a detailed justification of increases and reductions and the specific impact the proposed changes will have on the budget request for the following fiscal year. Except in emergency situations, reprogramming requests should be submitted no later than June 30.
The Committee expects each agency to manage its programs and activities within the amounts appropriated by Congress. The Committee reminds agencies that reprogramming requests should be submitted only in the case of an unforeseeable emergency or a situation that could not have been anticipated when formulating the budget request for the current fiscal year. Further, the Committee notes that when a Department or agency submits a reprogramming or transfer request to the Committees on Appropriations and does not receive identical responses from the House and Senate, it is the responsibility of the Department to reconcile the House and Senate differences before proceeding, and if reconciliation is not possible, to consider the request to reprogram funds unapproved.
The Committee would also like to clarify that this section applies to Working Capital Funds, and that no funds may be obligated from such funds to augment programs, projects or activities for which appropriations have been specifically rejected by the Congress, or to increase funds or personnel for any PPA above the amounts appropriated by this act.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS
Budget justifications are the primary tool used by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations to evaluate the resource requirements and fiscal needs of agencies. The Committee is aware that the format and presentation of budget materials is largely left to the agency within presentation objectives set forth by OMB. In fact, OMB Circular A-11, part 6 specifically states that the `agency should consult with your congressional committees beforehand to ensure their awareness of your plans to modify the format of agency budget documents.' The Committee expects that all agencies funded under this act will heed this directive. The Committee expects all the budget justification to provide the data needed to make appropriate and meaningful funding decisions.
While the Committee values the inclusion of performance data and presentations, it is important to ensure that vital budget information that the Committee needs is not lost. Therefore, the Committee directs that justifications submitted with the fiscal year 2010 budget request by agencies funded under this act contain the customary level of detailed data and explanatory statements to support the appropriations requests at the level of detail contained in the funding table included at the end of the report. Among other items, agencies shall provide a detailed discussion of proposed new initiatives, proposed changes in the agency's financial plan from prior year enactment, and detailed data on all programs and comprehensive information on any office or agency restructurings. At a minimum, each agency must also provide adequate justification for funding and staffing changes for each individual office and materials that compare programs, projects, and activities that are proposed for fiscal year 2010 to the fiscal year 2009 enacted level.
The Committee is aware that the analytical materials required for review by the Committee are unique to each agency in this act. Therefore, the Committee expects that the each agency will coordinate with the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in advance on its planned presentation for its budget justification materials in support of the fiscal year 2010 budget request.
TITLE I
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
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 comprised of the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary immediate and support offices; the Office of the General Counsel; the Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy, including the offices of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs and the Assistant Secretary for Transportation for Policy; three Assistant Secretarial offices for Budget and Programs, Governmental Affairs, and Administration; and the Offices of Public Affairs, the Executive Secretariat, Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, Intelligence, Security and Emergency Response, and Chief Information Officer. The Office of the Secretary also includes the Department's Office of Civil Rights and the Department's Working Capital Fund.
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
| Appropriations, 2008 | $91,782,000 |
| Budget estimate, 2009 | 101,782,000 |
| Committee recommendation | 98,500,000 |
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This appropriation finances the costs of policy development and central supervisory and coordinating functions necessary for the overall planning and direction of the Department. It covers the immediate secretarial offices and the offices of the under secretary, assistant secretaries, general counsel and other support offices.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a total of $98,500,000 for salaries and expenses of the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, including $60,000 for reception and representation expenses. The recommendation is $3,282,000 less than the budget request and $6,718,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. The accompanying bill stipulates that none of the funding provided may be used for the position of Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, and that $100,000 of the funding provided shall be reimbursed to the Office of Inspector General for costs associated with auditing the financial statements of the Working Capital Fund.
The accompanying bill authorizes the Secretary to transfer up to 5 percent of the funds from any Office of the Secretary to another. The Committee recommendation continues language that permits up to $2,500,000 of fees to be credited to the Office of the Secretary for salaries and expenses.
The following table summarizes the Committee's recommendation in comparison to the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and the budget estimate:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year-- Committee recommendation
2008 enacted 2009 request
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate Office of the Secretary $2,310,000 $2,400,000 $2,400,000
Office of the Deputy Secretary 730,000 759,000 759,000
Office of the General Counsel 18,720,000 18,438,000 19,838,000
Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy 9,874,000 12,681,000 9,874,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs 9,417,000 10,708,000 10,400,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs 2,383,000 2,447,000 2,400,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration 23,750,000 27,292,000 26,000,000
Office of Public Affairs 1,986,000 2,040,000 1,986,000
Executive Secretariat 1,516,000 1,595,000 1,595,000
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization 1,335,000 1,369,000 1,369,000
Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response 7,874,000 9,169,000 8,994,000
Office of the Chief Information Officer 11,887,000 12,885,000 12,885,000
Total, Salaries and Expenses 91,782,000 101,782,000 98,500,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Secretary of Transportation provides leadership and has the primary responsibility to provide overall planning, direction, and control of the Department.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $2,400,000 for fiscal year 2009 for the Immediate Office of the Secretary. The recommendation is the same as the budget request and $90,000 greater than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SECRETARY
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Deputy Secretary has the primary responsibility of assisting the Secretary in the overall planning and direction of the Department.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $759,000 for the Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary, which is identical to the budget request and $29,000 greater than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Office of the General Counsel provides legal services to the Office of the Secretary including the conduct of aviation regulatory proceedings and aviation consumer activities and coordinates and reviews the legal work in the chief counsels' offices of the operating administrations. The General Counsel is the chief legal officer of the Department of Transportation and the final authority within the Department on all legal questions.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $19,838,000 for expenses of the Office of the General Counsel for fiscal year 2009. The recommended funding level is $1,400,000 more than the budget request and $1,118,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
Efforts to Protect and Ensure the Rights of Airline Passengers- Last year, the Committee increased the budget of the Office of General Counsel by $2,500,000 in order to increase enforcement activities to better protect air travel consumers. The Committee notes that the Department's budget request for fiscal year 2009 would provide increases to almost every office within Office of the Secretary, including the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Government Affairs and the Office of Public Affairs, but not to the Office of the General Counsel. The budget request submitted by the Department would cut the budget for the Office of the General Counsel by $282,000. Of the $2,500,000 increase that the Congress provided last year to this office, the Department is currently requesting only $1,100,000 to be continued in fiscal year 2009. The Committee does not believe that this cut in the budget resources of the Office of General Counsel will help the Department enforce its rules and protect air travel consumers.
The Committee recommendation includes an additional $1,400,000 for the Office of General Counsel in order to restore the full $2,500,000 addition provided in the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. In addition, the Committee directs the Office of General Counsel to use these funds exclusively for activities that most effectively improve the enforcement of Department rules and the protection of air travel consumers. Such activities may include hiring additional staff, traveling, investing in analysis that is essential for developing regulations, and translating public documents. The Committee, however, does not believe that organizing additional forums to discuss general consumer issues is the most effective means of improving the impact of this office. Therefore, the Committee directs than none of the $2,500,000 should be used for organizing such forums in fiscal year 2009.
OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION FOR POLICY
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Under Secretary for Policy is the chief policy officer of the Department and is responsible to the Secretary for the analysis, development, and review of policies and plans for domestic and international transportation matters. The Office administers the economic regulatory functions regarding the airline industry and is responsible for international aviation programs, the essential air service program, airline fitness licensing, acquisitions, international route awards, computerized reservation systems, and special investigations such as airline delays.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
For fiscal year 2009, the Committee recommends $9,874,000 for the Office of the Under Secretary for Policy. The recommended funding level is $2,807,000 less than the budget request and equal to the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET AND PROGRAMS
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs is the principal staff advisor to the Secretary on the development, review, presentation, and execution of the Department's budget resource requirements, and on the evaluation and oversight of the Department's programs. The primary responsibilities of this office are to ensure the effective preparation and presentation of sound and adequate budget estimates for the Department, to ensure the consistency of the Department's budget execution with the action and advice of the Congress and the Office of Management and Budget, to evaluate the program proposals for consistency with the Secretary's stated objectives, and to advise the Secretary of program and legislative changes necessary to improve program effectiveness.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $10,400,000 for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs. The recommended level is $308,000 less than the budget request and $983,000 over the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs advises the Secretary on all congressional and intergovernmental activities and on all departmental legislative initiatives and other relationships with Members of Congress. The Assistant Secretary promotes effective communication with other Federal agencies and regional Department officials, and with State and local governments and national organizations for development of departmental programs; and ensures that consumer preferences, awareness, and needs are brought into the decisionmaking process.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a total of $2,400,000 for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs. The recommended level is $47,000 less than the budget request and $17,000 over the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Assistant Secretary for Administration is responsible for establishing policies and procedures, setting guidelines, working with the operating administrations to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Department in human resource management, security and administrative management, real and personal property management, and acquisition and grants management.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $26,000,000 for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration. The recommended funding level is $1,292,000 less than the budget request and $2,250,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Director of Public Affairs is the principal advisor to the Secretary and other senior departmental officials and news media on public affairs questions. The Office issues news releases, articles, fact sheets, briefing materials, publications, and audiovisual materials. It also provides information to the Secretary on opinions and reactions of the public and news media on transportation programs and issues. It arranges news conferences and provides speeches, talking points, and byline articles for the Secretary and other senior departmental officials, and arranges the Secretary's scheduling.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $1,986,000 for the Office of Public Affairs, which is $54,000 less than the budget request and equal to the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Executive Secretariat assists the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary in carrying out their management functions and responsibilities by controlling and coordinating internal and external written materials.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $1,595,000 for the Executive Secretariat. The recommendation is identical to the budget request and $79,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
OFFICE OF SMALL AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS UTILIZATION
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization has primary responsibility for providing policy direction for small and disadvantaged business participation in the Department's procurement and grant programs, and effective execution of the functions and duties under sections 8 and 15 of the Small Business Act, as amended.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $1,369,000, an amount equal to the budget request and $34,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE, SECURITY AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Office of Intelligence, Security and Emergency Response keeps the Secretary and her advisors informed on intelligence and security issues pertaining to transportation. The office also provides support to the Secretary for her statutory and administrative responsibilities in the areas of emergency preparedness, response, and recovery functions. Further, the office ensures that transportation policy and programs support the national objectives of general welfare, economic growth and stability, and the security of the Unites States.
The Office of Intelligence, Security and Emergency Response is at the forefront of the Department's response to transportation-related emergencies. To prepare for such events, the office coordinates and conducts the Department's participation in national and regional exercise and training for emergency personnel; administers the Department's Continuity of Government and Continuity of Operations programs; and coordinates DOT's role in select international contingency plan and response initiatives. Additionally, the office provides direct emergency response and recovery support through the National Response Plan [NRP] and operates the Department's Crisis Management Center [CMC], a facility that monitors the Nation's transportation system 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and is the Department's focal point during emergencies.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $8,994,000 for the Office of Intelligence, Security and Emergency Response. The recommendation is $175,000 less than the request and $1,120,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Office of the Chief Information Officer [OCIO] serves as the principal adviser to the Secretary on matters involving information resources and information systems management.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $12,885,000, which is equal to request and $998,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT CAPITAL
| Appropriations, 2008 | ........................... |
| Budget estimate, 2009 | $6,000,000 |
| Committee recommendation | 5,000,000 |
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Financial Management Capital program is a new multi-year business transformation initiative to streamline and standardize the financial systems and business processes across the Department of Transportation. The initiative includes upgrading and enhancing the commercial software used for DOT's financial systems, improving the cost and performance data provided to managers, implementing a budget line of business, and instituting new accounting standards and mandates.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee is recommending $5,000,000 to support the Secretary's Financial Management Capital initiative, which is $5,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and $1,000,000 less than the budget request.
This new initiative has the potential to improve the financial systems and processes of the Department and provide important benefits to all of the modes. The Committee applauds the effort that the Secretary has taken to involve the modal administrations in the planning and development process. However, the Committee wants to ensure that each mode is only paying for activities that will directly benefit its operations. The Committee is concerned that modes will be asked to reimburse OST for additional activities beyond which they have planned and budgeted, and from which they may not benefit. As a result, the Committee reminds the Secretary of language that continues to be included in the bill that limits OST's ability to approve new assessments or reimbursable agreements appropriated to the modal administrations for new activities, unless a reprogramming of funds is requested and approved by the Committees.
The Committee also directs OST to provide the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations with an expenditure plan 30 days after the enactment of this act that outlines the amount of funding for this initiative, including the amount contributed by each modal administration, as well as the benefits that will result from these investments. In addition, the Committee directs OST to provide more detailed justifications for this program in its fiscal year 2010 budget request. These detailed justifications should clearly display the amount requested for OST as well as the amount included in the budget request from each modal administration.
OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS
| Appropriations, 2008 | $9,141,900 |
| Budget estimate, 2009 | 9,384,000 |
| Committee recommendation | 9,384,000 |
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
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.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a funding level of $9,384,000 for the Office of Civil Rights for fiscal year 2009. The recommendation is identical to the budget request and is $242,100 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT
| Appropriations, 2008 | $13,883,900 |
| Budget estimate, 2009 | 10,105,000 |
| Committee recommendation | 12,750,000 |
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
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 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.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $12,750,000 for transportation planning, research, and development, which is $2,645,000 more than the budget request and $1,133,900 less than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. The Committee directs funding to be allocated to the following projects that are listed below:
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project name Committee recommendation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment of Critical Transportation Infrastructure, MS $750,000
Decision Support Tools for Transportation Resilience and Security, MS 750,000
Fire and Oil Spill Response Communications Project, WA 1,600,000
Freight Transportation Policy Institute, WA 500,000
Inland Pacific Hub Analysis Project, WA 250,000
University Transportation Center, MS 500,000
Wildlife Crossing Project, FL 1,000,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WORKING CAPITAL FUND
| Limitation, 2008 | $128,094,000 |
| Budget estimate, 2009 1 | ........................... |
| Committee recommendation | 128,094,000 |
| 1 Proposed without limitation. |
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Working Capital Fund [WCF] provides common administrative services to the Department's operating administrations and other Federal entities. The services are centrally performed in the interest of economy and efficiency and are funded through negotiated agreements with Department operating administrations and other Federal customers and are billed on a fee-for-service basis to the maximum extent possible.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a limitation of $128,094,000 on activities financed through the Working Capital Fund. The budget request proposes to remove the obligation limitation on the Working Capital Fund for services to the operating administrations of the Department. The Committee, however, continues to insist that the discipline of an annual limitation is necessary to keep assessments and services of the Working Capital Fund in line with costs. As in past years, the bill specifies that the limitation shall apply only to the Department and not to services provided by other entities. The Committee directs that services shall be provided on a competitive basis to the maximum extent possible.
The Committee notes that the Department has greatly improved the transparency of its budget justifications. The `transparency paper' included in the justifications for fiscal year 2009 provides essential information on total budgetary resources for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and the Office of the Chief Information Officer, including the balance of resources provided through the Working Capital Fund and direct appropriations. Therefore, the Committee directs the Department to update this `transparency paper' and include it in the budget justifications for fiscal year 2010.
MINORITY BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTER PROGRAM
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations Limitation on guaranteed loans
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2008 $893,000 $18,367,000
Budget estimate, 2009 912,000 18,367,000
Committee recommendation 912,000 18,367,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Minority Business Resource Center of the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization provides assistance in obtaining short-term working capital for disadvantaged, minority, and women-owned businesses. The program enables qualified businesses to obtain loans at prime interest rates for transportation-related projects. As required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account records the subsidy costs associated with guaranteed loans for this program as well as administrative expenses of this program.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $353,000 to cover the subsidy costs for guaranteed loans and $559,0000 for administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed loan program. The recommendation is the same as the budget estimate and it is $19,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. The Committee also recommends a limitation on guaranteed loans of $18,367,000 the same amount as the budget request and the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH
| Appropriations, 2008 | $2,970,000 |
| Budget estimate, 2009 | 3,056,000 |
| Committee recommendation | 3,056,000 |
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This appropriation provides contractual support to assist small, women-owned, Native American, and other disadvantaged business firms in securing contracts and subcontracts arising out of transportation-related 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 Department-wide goals and not just OST purposes.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $3,056,000 for grants and contractual support provided under this program for fiscal year 2009. The recommendation is the same as the budget request and $86,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
PAYMENTS TO AIR CARRIERS
(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations Mandatory 1 Total
------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2008 $60,000,000 $50,000,000 $110,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009 50,000,000 50,000,000
Committee recommendation 60,000,000 65,000,000 125,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This appropriation provides funding for the Essential Air Service [EAS] program, which was created to continue air service to communities that had received federally mandated air service prior to deregulation of commercial aviation in 1978. The program currently provides subsidies to air carriers serving small communities that meet certain criteria.
The Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-264) authorized the collection of user fees for services provided by the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] to aircraft that neither take off from, nor land in, the United States. In addition, the act stipulated that the first $50,000,000 of these so-called `overflight fees' must be used to finance the EAS program. In the event of a shortfall in fees, the law requires FAA to make up the difference from other funds available to the agency. No such shortfall has occurred, however, since fiscal year 2005.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
For fiscal year 2009, the administration proposes no appropriated funds for the EAS program, although the budget includes $50,000,000 for the EAS program to be funded by overflight fees collected by the FAA. The Committee recommendation, conversely, provides a total of $110,000,000 for the Essential Air Service program, which is comprised of an appropriation of $60,000,000 and $50,000,000 derived from overflight fees. The Committee recommendation is $60,000,000 more than the budget estimate and the same as the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. In addition, it is anticipated that $15,000,000 made available to the program from spectrum auction sales pursuant to Public Law 109-171 shall remain available to help meet program costs in 2009. As such, based on the latest projections from the Department of Transportation, the funding level provided in this bill in combination with other available funding sources should equal $125,000,000 and be sufficient to continue air service during fiscal year 2009 to all eligible communities.
The Committee rejects a proposal in the Presidents' budget request that would restructure the EAS program. The proposal would change the program by eliminating the `minimum requirements' for eligibility that are currently in place, allowing EAS funds to be used for ground transportation, and establishing a ranking of eligible communities in order to determine the order in which they would receive assistance. The Presidents proposal would serve to eliminate air service to a great many communities.
Emerging Challenges to Continued EAS Service- Several factors are serving to undermine the ability of the DOT to deliver air service to all the communities that are guaranteed such service under the regulations governing the EAS program. Just as market forces have resulted in the loss of air service to small- and medium-sized communities that are not eligible for EAS subsidies, those very same forces have made it difficult to entice air carriers to serve such communities utilizing Federal EAS subsidies. Over the last several years, the major passenger air carriers have effectively abandoned the EAS program, leaving smaller, less-capitalized, carriers to serve the subsidized communities. Many of these smaller carriers have struggled to stay afloat. The program has also been challenged by a growing shortage of appropriately sized aircraft that are available to serve EAS communities as such equipment is either being retired from the fleet or is being used for more profitable services elsewhere in the United States or overseas.
Over the course of the last year, three EAS carriers--Air Midwest, Big Sky Airways, and Skyways Airlines, have each shuttered their operations. As a result, 37 eligible communities temporarily lost their EAS subsidized service. Taken together, the following communities are expected to be without air service for an estimated cumulative period of at least 133 months as a result of these shut downs.
EAS COMMUNITIES EXPERIENCING SERVICE INTERRUPTIONS AND SHUTDOWNS
[As of June 20, 2008]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last date of service in 2008 Tentative projected start of new service Estimated no. of months dark Incoming carrier/status
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIR MIDWEST SHUTDOWN
EAST:
Athens, GA May 23 Sep 01 3 Pacific Wings
DuBois, PA May 23 Sep 03 3 Gulfstream
Franklin/Oil City, PA May 23 Sep 03 3 Gulfstream
Lewisburg, WV May 23 Sep 03 3 Gulfstream
WEST:
Ely, NV May 31 Sep 08 3 Great Lakes
Kingman, AZ May 31 Great Lakes
Merced, CA May 31 Sep 08 3 Great Lakes
Prescott, AZ May 31 Great Lakes
Visalia, CA May 31 Sep 08 3 Great Lakes
CENTRAL:
Columbia, MO June 30 Aug 19 1.5 Mesaba
El Dorado, AR June 30 Re-bid Proposals due June 20
Grand Island, NE June 30 Re-bid Proposals due June 20
Harrison, AR June 30 Re-bid Proposals due June 20
Hot Springs, AR June 30 Re-bid Proposals due June 20
Jonesboro, AR June 30 Sep 01 2 Great Lakes
Joplin, MO June 30 Re-bid Proposals due June 20
Kirksville, MO June 30 Jul 28 1 Multi-Aero
McCook, NE June 30 June 01 Great Lakes
BIG SKY SHUTDOWN
Cape Girardeau, MO Jan 06 June 01 6 Great Lakes
Jackson, TN Jan 06 Sep 01 8 Great Lakes
Massena, NY Jan 06 Sep 16 8 Cape Air
Ogdensburg, NY Jan 06 Sep 16 8 Cape Air
Owensboro, KY Jan 06 Sep 01 8 Great Lakes
Plattsburgh, NY Jan 06 Feb 12 1 Cape Air
Saranac Lake, NY Jan 06 Feb 12 1 Cape Air
Watertown, NY Jan 06 Sep 16 8 Cape Air
Glasgow, MT Mar 08 Nov 01 8 Great Lakes
Glendive, MT Mar 08 Nov 01 8 Great Lakes
Havre, MT Mar 08 Nov 01 8 Great Lakes
Lewistown,MT Mar 08 Sep 08 (maybe Aug 1) 6 Great Lakes
Miles City, MT Mar 08 Nov 01 8 Great Lakes
Sidney, MT Mar 08 Sep 08 (maybe Aug 1) 6 Great Lakes
Wolf Point, MT Mar 08 Nov 01 8 Great Lakes
SKYWAYS SHUTDOWN
Ironwood, MI Apr 06 June 01 2 Great Lakes
Manistee, MI Apr 06 June 01 2 Great Lakes
Iron Mountain, MI Apr 06 June 05 2 Mesaba
Escanaba, MI Apr 06 June 05 2 Mesaba
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOT has been able to secure alternative carriers for many of these communities but is struggling to find alternative carriers for others. It is likely that some of these communities may never see air service return despite the availability of Federal subsidies.
Rising fuel prices have also put increasing financial pressure on EAS carriers. As these carrier's EAS contracts come due to be renegotiated, they are appropriately seeking compensation that more realistically reflects the true cost of supplying air service under current market conditions.
In the current fiscal year (2008), the EAS program should have adequate Federal resources to meet program costs. However, this is due in part because the increased cost of the newly entered contracts reflecting higher fuel prices are being offset in part by the savings associated with the program not having to pay subsidies for the communities enduring service interruptions.
The Committee recognizes that the EAS program is undergoing a period of unprecedented uncertainty that makes it extremely difficult to predict what true program costs will be during fiscal year 2009. As such, the Committee has continued to include bill language, as it did in the 2008 Act, that directs the Secretary to transfer to the EAS program such sums as may be necessary to continue service to all eligible EAS points in fiscal year 2009. These funds, if needed, will be derived from other funds directly administered by, or appropriated to, the Office of the Secretary.
The following table reflects the points currently receiving service and the annual rates as of June 1, 2008, in the continental United States and Hawaii.
ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE SUBSIDY PER PASSENGER
[Data based on June 1, 2008 rates and CY 2007 passengers]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
States/communities Est. Miles to Nearest Hub (S,M,or L) 1 Avg. Daily Enplnmnts at EAS Point (YE 12/31/07) Ann. Sbsdy Rates at 6/1/2008 Subsidy per Passenger Total Psgrs (YE 12/31/07) Hub Est. no. of months in 2008 with no service Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA:
Muscle Shoals/Florence 60 17.0 $1,504,929 $141.06 10,669 MEM
ARIZONA:
Kingman 121 7.7 1,275,771 266.01 4,796 LAS ( 2 )
Page 152 17.2 1,497,556 138.89 10,782 PHX
Prescott 102 12.2 1,622,719 212.29 7,644 PHX ( 2 )
Show Low 154 20.0 988,181 78.94 12,518 PHX
ARKANSAS:
El Dorado 107 5.3 937,385 282.09 3,323 DFW ( 3 )
Harrison 80 15.4 1,406,078 145.48 9,665 DFW ( 3 )
Hot Springs 51 11.2 1,015,500 144.74 7,016 DFW ( 3 )
Jonesboro 82 9.9 937,385 151.44 6,190 DFW 2
CALIFORNIA:
Crescent City 314 42.2 957,025 36.22 26,421 SFO/SMF
Merced 60 19.3 799,604 66.12 12,094 LAS 3
Visalia 47 14.4 799,604 88.43 9,042 LAS 3
COLORADO:
Alamosa 164 23.5 1,150,268 78.28 14,694 DEN
Cortez 255 33.0 796,577 38.61 20,634 DEN
Pueblo 36 15.2 1,057,128 111.24 9,503 DEN
GEORGIA:
Athens 72 19.4 1,051,386 86.52 12,152 ATL 3
Macon 82 37.5 1,968,830 83.97 23,447 ATL
ILLINOIS:
Decatur 126 11.8 1,350,256 182.54 7,397 STL
Marion 123 19.8 1,126,810 90.80 12,410 STL
Quincy 111 7.6 1,532,891 322.65 4,751 STL
IOWA:
Burlington 74 943,793 MCI ( 4 )
Fort Dodge 91 22.3 1,056,933 75.66 13,969 MSP
Mason City 131 42.9 1,056,933 39.31 26,885 MSP
KANSAS:
Dodge City 150 16.5 1,378,036 133.09 10,354 DEN/MCI
Garden City 202 35.0 2,373,320 108.30 21,915 DEN/MCI
Great Bend 114 2.6 749,435 468.40 1,600 MCI
Hays 175 31.8 1,757,154 88.40 19,878 DEN/MCI
Liberal 138 12.7 995,284 125.22 7,948 DEN
Manhattan 122 44.3 1,198,342 43.24 27,713 MCI
Salina 97 9.3 798,895 137.43 5,813 MCI
KENTUCKY:
Owensboro 105 1,448,625 STL 8 ( 4 )
MAINE:
Augusta 67 13.1 1,190,864 166.08 8,191 BOS
Bar Harbor 144 35.3 1,190,864 53.86 22,109 BOS
Presque Isle 262 49.8 2,643,588 84.85 31,157 BOS
Rockland 81 19.7 1,190,864 96.47 12,345 BOS
MARYLAND:
Hagerstown 78 8.6 5,413 ( 5 )
MICHIGAN:
Escanaba 112 30.2 1,125,884 59.56 18,903 MSP 2
Ironwood 213 8.5 1,492,865 280.51 5,322 MKE 2
Iron Mountain 105 24.1 1,125,884 74.54 15,105 MSP 2
Manistee 110 10.6 1,799,395 272.06 6,614 MKE 2
MINNESOTA:
Chisholm/Hibbing 199 27.3 1,261,841 73.96 17,060 MSP
Thief River Falls 305 10.9 1,065,639 156.83 6,795 MSP
MISSISSIPPI:
Laurel/Hattiesburg 89 46.6 917,129 31.47 29,142 MEM
Meridian 88 49.7 686,489 22.06 31,114 ATL
MISSOURI:
Cape Girardeau 127 1,497,542 STL 6
Columbia 116 35.5 598,751 26.92 22,244 STL 1.5
Ft. Leonard Wood 85 519,858 STL
Joplin 70 46.9 849,757 28.92 29,386 MCI ( 3 )
Kirksville 137 6.1 627,100 163.35 3,839 STL 1
MONTANA:
Glasgow 285 6.0 928,433 246.40 3,768 BIL 8
Glendive 222 3.1 1,056,152 548.37 1,926 BIL 8
Havre 230 4.3 1,036,616 381.11 2,720 BIL 8
Lewistown 103 2.1 1,036,616 790.71 1,311 BIL 6
Miles City 145 3.6 1,056,152 468.78 2,253 BIL 8
Sidney 272 10.5 2,159,591 329.01 6,564 BIL 6
West Yellowstone 332 12.1 431,996 57.26 7,545 SLC
Wolf Point 293 5.2 928,433 283.84 3,271 BIL 8
NEBRASKA:
Alliance 233 6.3 748,635 188.53 3,971 DEN
Chadron 290 7.7 748,635 155.45 4,816 DEN
Grand Island 138 28.6 1,377,877 76.91 17,916 MCI ( 3 )
Kearney 181 40.2 897,142 35.67 25,153 DEN
McCook 256 9.3 918,585 158.10 5,810 DEN
North Platte 255 33.8 976,026 46.06 21,190 DEN
Scottsbluff 192 37.4 520,137 22.20 23,431 DEN
NEVADA:
Ely 234 1.9 647,709 547.51 1,183 LAS 3
NEW HAMPSHIRE:
Lebanon 72 30.3 1,069,606 56.45 18,948 LGA
NEW MEXICO:
Alamogordo 89 1.3 717,506 851.13 843 ABQ
Carlsbad 149 8.2 303,554 59.42 5,109 ABQ
Clovis 102 8.3 1,182,645 227.87 5,190 ABQ
Hobbs 90 6.7 303,554 71.95 4,219 ABQ
Silver City 134 7.0 1,182,645 271.06 4,363 ABQ
NEW YORK:
Jamestown 76 13.1 1,217,414 147.91 8,231 IAD
Massena 138 5.5 1,297,613 379.42 3,420 ALB 8
Ogdensburg 105 7.6 1,353,916 283.01 4,784 ALB 8
Plattsburgh 82 2.6 1,379,257 848.25 1,626 BOS 1
Saranac Lake 132 11.1 1,431,875 205.58 6,965 BOS 1
Watertown 54 29.1 1,228,334 67.37 18,232 ALB 8
NORTH DAKOTA:
Devils Lake 402 10.9 1,331,664 194.94 6,831 MSP
Dickinson 319 24.5 1,696,977 110.44 15,365 DEN
Jamestown 333 7.1 1,355,011 305.39 4,437 MSP
OREGON:
Pendleton 185 23.9 748,440 50.00 14,969 PDX
PENNSYLVANIA:
Altoona 112 13.4 1,413,627 168.81 8,374 IAD
Bradford 77 9.4 1,217,414 207.36 5,871 IAD
Du Bois 112 22.2 2,020,095 145.29 13,904 CLE 3
Johnstown 84 29.5 950,835 51.40 18,497 IAD
Lancaster 28 16.9 10,583 ( 5 )
Oil City/Franklin 85 4.8 1,226,773 412.50 2,974 CLE 3
PUERTO RICO:
Mayaguez 105 14.6 735,660 80.26 9,166 SJU
Ponce 77 13.9 661,399 75.87 8,717 SJU ( 6 )
SOUTH DAKOTA:
Brookings 58 4.7 2,940 ( 5 )
Huron 121 8.6 793,733 146.66 5,412 DEN
Watertown 207 16.8 1,189,606 112.97 10,530 MSP
TENNESSEE:
Jackson 86 .0 1,598,291 STL 8 ( 4 )
TEXAS:
Victoria 93 28.9 610,047 33.67 18,120 IAH
UTAH:
Cedar City 179 20.6 1,242,256 96.18 12,916 SLC
Moab 256 8.9 1,607,903 287.54 5,592 DEN
Vernal 150 9.4 1,147,786 194.18 5,911 DEN
VERMONT:
Rutland 69 7.4 839,746 180.28 4,658 BOS
VIRGINIA:
Staunton 133 15.5 1,389,727 142.87 9,727 IAD
WEST VIRGINIA:
Beckley 168 9.1 1,930,759 338.79 5,699 IAD
Clarksburg 96 13.5 1,058,325 124.98 8,468 IAD
Greenbrier/Lewisburg 166 13.7 2,330,725 270.95 8,602 CLE 3 ( 7 )
Morgantown 75 12.2 1,058,325 138.80 7,625 IAD
Parkersburg 110 14.2 2,290,727 256.81 8,920 IAD
WYOMING:
Laramie 145 32.7 487,516 23.85 20,443 DEN
Worland 161 11.8 972,757 131.15 7,417 DEN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPENSATION FOR AIR CARRIERS
(RESCISSION)
| Appropriations, 2008 | -$22,000,000 |
| Budget estimate, 2009 | -848,000 |
| Committee recommendation | -848,000 |
The Committee recommends a rescission of all remaining balances from this account in fiscal year 2009. These balances are estimated at $848,000. This rescission level is the same as the budget request and $21,152,000 less than the rescission level enacted for fiscal year 2008. The funds recommended for rescission are in excess of the amount determined to be needed for eligible payments to air carriers.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION
Section 101 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to transfer to the account called `Minority Business Outreach' unexpended balances from the bonding assistance program funded out of the account `Office of the Secretary, Salaries and Expenses.'
Section 102 prohibits the Office of the Secretary of Transportation from obligating funds originally provided to a modal administration in order to approve assessments or reimbursable agreements, unless the Department follows the regular process for the reprogramming of funds, including congressional notification.
Section 103 prohibits the use of funds for an EAS local participation program.
Section 104 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation or her designee to engage in activities with States and State legislatures to consider proposals related to the reduction of motorcycle fatalities.
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Federal Aviation Administration is responsible for the safe movement of civil aviation and the evolution of a national system of airports. The Federal Government's regulatory role in civil aviation began with the creation of an Aeronautics Branch within the Department of Commerce pursuant to the Air Commerce Act of 1926. This act instructed the agency to foster air commerce; designate and establish airways; establish, operate, and maintain aids to navigation; arrange for research and development to improve such aids; issue airworthiness certificates for aircraft and major aircraft components; and investigate civil aviation accidents. In the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, these activities were transferred to a new, independent agency named the Civil Aeronautics Authority.
Congress streamlined regulatory oversight in 1957 with the creation of two separate agencies, the Federal Aviation Agency and the Civil Aeronautics Board. When the Department of Transportation [DOT] began its operations in 1967, the Federal Aviation Agency was renamed the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] and became one of several modal administrations within DOT. The Civil Aeronautics Board was later phased out with enactment of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, and ceased to exist in 1984. Responsibility for the investigation of civil aviation accidents was given to the National Transportation Safety Board in 1967. FAA's mission expanded in 1995 with the transfer of the Office of Commercial Space Transportation from the Office of the Secretary, and decreased in December 2001 with the transfer of civil aviation security activities to the new Transportation Security Administration.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The total recommended program level for the FAA for fiscal year 2009 amounts to $15,505,833,000, which is $862,833,000 more than the budget request and $590,894,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
The current budget structure for the FAA includes distinct accounts to pay for the operations of the agency (Operations), and the agency's capital expenditures (Facilities and Equipment). The FAA budget justification for fiscal year 2009 proposes to restructure these two accounts along the lines of business of the agency. Under this proposal, one account would pay for the Air Traffic Organization, including both the operating and capital expenses of the organization. Another account, Safety and Operations, would pay for both the operating and capital expenses of the Aviation Safety office and other offices within the FAA. This new budget structure is consistent with the reauthorization proposal submitted by the President last year. The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation has reported legislation that would authorize FAA programs through fiscal year 2011 and the House of Representatives has transmitted a bill to the Senate that also would extend such programs through fiscal year 2011. Both the Commerce Committee bill and the bill approved by the House of Representatives continue to authorize FAA programs under the existing account structure. As such, the Committee has also followed the current account structure for its appropriations recommendations for 2009. All of the information presented below, including the display of President's budget estimates for fiscal year 2009, follows the existing structure.
In addition to changes to the FAA budget structure, the reauthorization proposal submitted by the President would make significant changes to the financing of FAA programs. The proposal would replace the current system of aviation taxes with a new user fee system, and it would provide the FAA with the authority to borrow up to $5,000,000,000 from the Treasury. Such borrowing would be repaid by an automatic increase to one of the newly-proposed user fees. Such borrowing authority would represent a considerable departure from the current financing of almost all FAA spending through direct appropriations.
The Appropriations Committee has played a central role in ensuring that the FAA has the resources it needs to conduct its missions. The Committee has also sought to protect the investment of taxpayer dollars in the FAA by making sure that the agency spends its resources efficiently. Not only has the Committee cut wasteful spending on ineffective programs, it has also provided additional resources for critically important activities that the agency or the Office of Management and Budget [OMB] had overlooked in its budget requests. As such, the Committee continues to believe that any degradation in the Committee's ability to annually set programmatic spending levels and oversee the agency's spending habits as part of the reauthorization process should be strenuously resisted.
The following table summarizes the Committee's recommendations for fiscal year 2009 excluding rescissions:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year-- Committee recommendation
2008 enacted 2009 estimate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations:
General fund appropriation $2,342,939,100 $2,717,489,000 $2,923,238,000
Trust fund appropriation 6,397,060,900 6,280,973,000 6,147,000,000
Facilities and equipment 2,513,611,000 2,723,510,000 2,749,595,000
Research, engineering, and development:
General fund appropriation 15,025,000
Trust fund appropriation 146,828,000 156,003,000 171,000,000
Grants-in-aid for airports 3,514,500,000 2,750,000,000 3,515,000,000
Total 14,914,939,000 14,643,000,000 15,505,833,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATIONS
| Appropriations, 2008 | $8,740,000,000 |
| Budget estimate, 2009 | 8,998,462,000 |
| Committee recommendation | 9,070,238,000 |
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This appropriation provides funds for the operation, maintenance, communications, and logistical support of the air traffic control and air navigation systems. It also covers administrative and managerial costs for the FAA's regulatory, international, commercial space, medical, engineering and development programs, as well as policy oversight and agency management functions. The operations appropriation includes the following major activities: (1) the air traffic organization which operates, on a 24-hour daily basis, the national air traffic system, including the establishment and maintenance of a national system of aids to navigation, the development and distribution of aeronautical charts and the administration of acquisition, and research and development programs; (2) the regulation and certification activities including establishment and surveillance of civil air regulations to assure safety and development of standards, rules and regulations governing the physical fitness of airmen as well as the administration of an aviation medical research program; (3) the office of commercial space transportation; and (4) headquarters, administration and other staff and support offices.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a total of $9,070,238,000 for FAA operations. This funding level is $71,776,000 more than the budget request, and $330,238,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. The Committee recommendation derives $6,147,000,000 of the appropriation from the airport and airway trust fund. The balance of the appropriation will be drawn from the general fund of the Treasury.
As in past years, FAA is directed to report immediately to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in the event resources are insufficient to operate a safe and effective air traffic control system.
The Committee continues three provisions enacted in prior years relating to premium pay, aeronautical charting and cartography, and Government-issued credit cards.
The following table summarizes the Committee's recommendation in comparison to the budget estimate and fiscal year 2008 enacted level:
FAA OPERATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Committee recommendation
2008 enacted 2009 estimate
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Traffic Organization $6,966,193,000 $7,078,793,000 $7,119,031,000
Aviation Safety 1,081,602,000 1,130,927,000 1,162,927,000
Commercial Space Transportation 12,549,000 14,094,000 14,094,000
Financial Services 100,593,000 112,004,000 112,004,000
Human Resource Management 91,214,000 96,091,000 96,091,000
Region and Center Operations 286,848,000 336,894,000 336,894,000
Staff Offices 162,351,000 181,321,000 180,859,000
Information Services 38,650,000 48,338,000 48,338,000
TOTAL 8,740,000,000 8,998,462,000 9,070,238,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 11, 1996, Valujet Flight 592 crashed into the Florida Everglades, killing all 110 people on board. Investigations of that tragedy revealed glaring weaknesses in the FAA's program to inspect air carriers and ensure the safety of their operations. Shortly after the accident, the Associate FAA Administrator for Certification and Regulation announced his immediate retirement. Both the DOT and Congress moved rapidly to limit the FAA's mission to overseeing the safety of air transportation. Congress insisted that it was inappropriate for an agency in charge of regulating aviation safety to be simultaneously charged with advancing the commercial viability of the airline industry. Today, the FAA still struggles with creating a culture of safety and accountability. During the past year, whistleblowers disclosed that managers at an air traffic control facility had consistently underreported and misclassified operational errors by air traffic controllers. Those whistleblowers' attempts to expose and rectify the problem were met by inappropriate and punitive retaliation on the part of FAA managers. In another incident, the FAA allowed an air carrier to fly passengers for a period of at least 9 months while their aircraft were in violation of mandatory FAA safety directives. The FAA manager in charge was fully aware of these violations by the carrier but, nonetheless, allowed the carrier to fly almost 1,500 more flights carrying 145,000 passengers before other FAA managers intervened and required the violations to be rectified.
In both of the incidents cited above, FAA managers at various levels of authority were either knowledgeable or complicit in these inappropriate actions. As recently as June 30, 2008, the DOT Inspector General's investigation of the latter incident concluded that `it appears that FAA management fostered a culture whereby air carriers were considered the primary customer of its oversight mission instead of the flying public.' The Committee is dismayed over the fact that, despite numerous and repeated representations to the contrary, so little has changed in both the culture of the agency and its commitment to fixing past mistakes.
Ignoring Past Agency Commitments to Improve Safety-
- `Starting in 1991, we were addressing these very same issues. We were asking what is wrong with FAA inspections. We came up with a virtual laundry list of things that were wrong. There were promises made and promises not kept This is back in 1991--totally different leadership, totally different administration, but the problems go on. We found problems in safety oversight, problems in maintenance, problems in repair stations . . .'
DOT Inspector General Mary Shiavo
Testimony on ValuJet Flight 592 Tragedy
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
June 25, 1996.
- `It is frustrating. In response to our 2002 recommendation for greater national oversight, FAA promised that its newly appointed Director of Flight Standards Division would undertake that responsibility. It didn't happen. We felt that we had been burned. When we reviewed ATOS again in 2005, we found the same thing.'
DOT Inspector General Cal Scovell
Testimony on FAA Safety Performance
Senate Committee on Appropriations
April 17, 2008.
Consistent with its statutory charge, the DOT Inspector General [OIG] has continually examined the performance of the FAA and issued relevant recommendations. The FAA, in return, has often formally agreed with the IG's recommendations and promised to make improvements. Yet, these recommendations have often remained open for years at a time. The OIG has even had to take the unusual step of issuing new recommendations that say nothing more than that the FAA should quit dithering and implement the very recommendations that the agency had already promised to implement years before.
The OIG is continuing to look at the two incidents from this past year that revealed serious lapses in safety oversight and a disturbing absence of accountability on the part of FAA managers. These investigations are likely to result in significant recommendations from the Inspector General. The Committee expects the FAA to implement those safety recommendations in which the agency concurs fully and without delay. The FAA's continuing practice of issuing empty promises for improvement, but then continuing to conduct `business as usual' must cease.
The Committee notes that the OIG is currently monitoring over 180 recommendations that the office has issued to the FAA since 2001. These recommendations focus on improving safety, reducing risk posed by with major air traffic control projects, addressing key workforce issues, and strengthening financial management. Although the FAA has concurred with almost all of these recommendations, the agency still has not implemented the recommendations as promised. The chart below lists several of these recommendations that the OIG has identified as `key' recommendations that focus on improving safety, security, and oversight as well as improving fiscal controls of the FAA. Again, the FAA has concurred with all but one of these recommendations, but has not followed their concurrences with sufficient action to close the recommendation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report title Date issued Open recommendation(s)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review of Air Carriers' Use of Aircraft Repair Stations 7/8/2003 Develop a process to: (a) identify repair stations that air carriers use to perform aircraft maintenance; (b) identify repair stations that are performing safety critical repairs; and (c) target inspector resources based on risk assessments or analysis of data collected on air carrier outsourcing practices.
Operational Evolution Plan (OEP) 7/23/2003 Develop realistic cost estimates for capacity initiatives, and link the OEP with the Agency's budget in order to set priorities for what can be accomplished in the short term.Determine--in concert with the aviation community--how to move forward (and at what pace) with systems that require airspace users to purchase and install new technologies.
Audit of FAA's Traffic Controller Program 6/2/2004 Develop an assessment process for identifying a new controller's potential to certify at a certain facility level and use this information in placing newly hired controllers.Compile national statistics and establish a baseline to better manage the time and costs associated with the controller on-the-job training [OJT] process and include these in developing a tracking system for training.
Security and Controls Over En Route Center Computer Systems 8/9/2004 Enable and enforce use of passwords to authenticate users of Air Traffic Control systems.Install automatic fire suppression systems to protect telecommunications equipment at the en route centers and other key locations.
Report on Observations on FAA's Controller Pilot Data Link Communications [CPDLC] Program 9/30/2004 Implement a process by which FAA and industry agree on entrance and exit criteria of joint programs that require synchronized government and industry investment, should FAA start another CPDLC program.
Review of FAA's Terminal Automation Alternatives 11/23/2004 Replace aging displays at its four large terminal sites that do not have color displays. This should be done expeditiously and based on the priority needs of individual sites.Determine requirements for fusion tracking (integrating radar and satellite data for air traffic control) as well as where it is needed, how much it will cost, and how long it would take to deploy.
National Airspace Redesign 5/13/2005 Develop a strategy and establish guidelines for addressing the demand for new sectors. This strategy should take into account, among other things, planned technology enhancements, equipment and frequency limitations, and the expected size of the controller workforce.
Safety Oversight of an Air Carrier Industry in Transition 6/3/2005 Establish policies and procedures to ensure national analysis and support groups provide stronger national assistance to field offices so that risk assessments and inspections of air carrier changes are conducted in a timely and consistent manner.
Review of Chicago O'Hare Modernization Program (OMP) 7/21/2005 Develop a schedule that synchronizes implementation of airspace changes with airfield changes and send to Congress a budget linked to this schedule that identifies the timing and cost of the resources needed to complete OMP airspace changes. This includes airspace changes outside the Chicago area that further enhance the OMP.
Disposal and Development of Properties Acquired Under Airport Noise Compatibility Programs 9/30/2005 Ensure that sponsors (a) implement written, FAA-approved plans for disposing of Airport Improvement Program [AIP] funded noise land that is no longer needed for noise compatibility programs or for airport development and (b) either return the proceeds from any dispositions to the Trust Fund or reinvest them in other FAA-approved noise mitigation projects at the airport.
Disposal and Development of Properties Acquired Under Airport Noise Compatibility Programs 9/30/2005 FAA should direct airport sponsors to develop and implement plans to recover FAA's share (estimated at $81.7 million) of the affected land's fair market value from airports that are misusing noise land disposition proceeds at 11 airports.
Follow-up Audit-Review of Air Traffic Controller Training 12/7/2005 Identify specific coursework taught at the FAA Academy as part of new controller training that is currently provided or could be provided by colleges and universities.Determine if those courses could be discontinued as part of FAA provided training and instead made a prerequisite to employment as an air traffic controller with the FAA.Report the results of the determination (course work review and analysis) to the Secretary, Congress, and the Office of Management and Budget as part of the next update to the Agency's Controller Workforce Plan, which is due at the beginning of the fiscal year 2007 appropriations cycle.
Air Carriers' Use of Non-Certificated Repair Facilities 12/15/2005 Inventory air carrier vendor lists that include all maintenance providers working on air carrier aircraft and identify non-certificated repair facilities performing critical or scheduled maintenance. Determine whether it should limit the type of work non-certificated facilities can perform.Review air carriers' internal audit programs for non-certificated repair facilities as part of the oversight of air carrier operations to ensure that each carrier has established a standard and in-depth process for evaluating these facilities.Determine whether air carriers evaluate the background, experience, and qualifications of temporary maintenance personnel used by contractors to ensure the work they perform is completed in accordance with FAA and air carrier requirements.
Physical Security of FAA Facilities 2/14/2006 Establish protocols and conduct periodic tests of access controls at all FAA staffed facilities. Facility accreditation should be contingent upon successfully passing testing.Require that contract security guards obtain up-to-date training on various screening technologies and testing equipment.
Security and Control Over the Remote Maintenance Processing System [RMMS], FAA 2/21/2006 Enhance the current Maintenance Process System [MPS] contingency plan to address situations in which the MPS computer becomes nonfunctional, including an evaluation of alternative ways to gain remote access to critical field equipment.
Quality Control Review of the Report on Controls Over the Enterprise Service Center's Delphi Financial Management System 9/29/2006 Enterprise Services Center Management should consider implementing a security enclave that would separate the Delphi servers by placing the servers on their own Internet Protocol network. The access to this network should be controlled by firewalls and monitored by an Intrusion Detection System. In the short run, coordinate patch management and other security features for all agencies that own hardware/software in the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center.
Review of FAA's 2006 Update to the Controller Workforce Plan 2/9/2007 Begin using the on-the-job-training [OJT] national database to (a) determine whether training resources can be used more efficiently and effectively, (b) identify best practices, and (c) identify and investigate instances where excessive time lapses in the OJT process occurred.
Joint Planning and Development Office [JPDO] 2/12/2007 Report Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) cost data along three vectors--developmental efforts, adjustments to existing programs, and NextGen implementation--when reporting NextGen financial requirements to Congress and stakeholders.
Review existing ongoing modernization programs to determine if they are still needed and, if so, what adjustments in cost, schedule, and performance parameters will be needed.
Include information in the annual JPDO progress report on specific research projects with budget data for FAA developmental efforts as well as budget data of other agencies that are being leveraged and specify how the ongoing research is supporting the JPDO.
Determine what skill sets and expertise, with respect to software development and system integration, will be required by the Air Traffic Organization and JPDO--and how they will be obtained--to manage and execute NextGen initiatives.
Fund targeted human factors research to ensure that the changing roles of controllers and pilots envisioned by the JPDO can safely be accommodated. This will require a re-prioritization of ongoing efforts at FAA and close cooperation with National Aeronautics and Space Administration, which also conducts human factors research.
Review of FAA's Actions To Address Runway Incursions at Boston Logan, Chicago O'Hare and Philadelphia International Airports 5/24/2007 Require each line of business to include quantitative goals in their annual business plans for reducing runway incursion risks that are specific to their oversight responsibilities and designate the Runway Safety Office the authority to review and approve all runway safety initiatives submitted by all lines of business.
FAA's Review of Allegations of Unsafe Maintenance Practices at Northwest Airlines 9/28/2007 Require the Flight Standards Service to establish better internal review procedures to ensure that comprehensive, independent investigations of safety allegations and recommendations are consistently performed.
FAA's Review of Allegations of Unsafe Maintenance Practices at Northwest Airlines 10/31/2007 Develop (a) realistic cost estimates for all activities required to complete ASDE-X implementation and (b) a master schedule through ASDE-X completion that outlines when all implementation activities and planned capabilities will be commissioned for operational use.Correct prohibitive and improper contract administration procedures by (a) discontinuing the practice of increasing contractor fees based on costs incurred rather than negotiated fixed-fee dollar amounts, (b) discontinuing the practice of making payments before meaningful work has been completed on fixed-price items, and (c) adequately documenting any contract changes.Resolve operational performance issues identified during system testing before implementing key ASDE-X safety capabilities at other airports by (a) addressing timeliness of safety alert capabilities for intersecting runways and fully testing converging taxiways capability, (b) addressing problems with dropped targets and outages during heavy rain storms, and (c) testing rain configuration software upgrades at airports with Airport Surface Detection Equipment-Model 3 radars and intersecting runways and taxiways.
Determine (a) the feasibility of combining ASDE-X, Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast [ADS-B], and in-cockpit moving map technologies to simultaneously provide controllers and pilots with direct alerts to warn them of potential ground collisions and (b) the costs and timeline for implementing this capability at all ASDE-X airports.
Work with airports to aggressively promote equipping their vehicles with transponders to maximize ASDE-X capabilities as a vital step in reducing the risks of ground collisions caused by vehicle operator error.
Monitoring of fiscal year 2007 Audit of Federal Aviation Administration's [FAA] Financial Statement 11/9/2007 Fully comply with the existing standardized policies and procedures for timely entry of transactions in the fixed assets subsidiary ledger to ensure that Construction in Progress [CIP] and related Property, Plant & Equipment [PP&E] balances are accurate, complete and performed timely throughout the year. Perform a detailed review over all base and pool projects to ensure burden allocations and allocations are complete and accurate.
Complete the design and full implementation of internal controls around the existing and planned standardized policies and procedures, as well as clearly define the roles and responsibilities necessary to set-up and then manage financial reporting and capitalization operations in the various FAA organizations, as required by FMFIA and OMB Circular A-123.Ensure that supporting documentation for capitalization of PP&E, including CIP, is properly managed, maintained, and available for examination upon request. Management should consider the need for enhancing or re-evaluating current on-line documentation management system tools, as well as on-demand access to financial data for the Financial Management [AFM] organization for ad hoc reporting to support audit requirements and to support AFM in managing the CIP account.
Implement a scorecard with metrics to track compliance with capitalization policies and procedures and to ensure that assets are being capitalized timely. Implement a capability to track the estimated date place in service by asset to facilitate CIP management, forecast deployment of assets, and improve the quality of the year end assertion/accrual process.
Continue training and strengthening communication between the field, regions, and the operating accounting offices to ensure that they follow newly implemented guidance resulting from the Corrective Action Plan over PP&E, including CIP.
Improve the functionality of its IT systems, especially fixed assets project modules, to automate transactions wherever possible, and reduce the extent of manual intervention to record routine transactions involving CIP and PP&E.Perform a human capital needs assessment for various FAA offices, with a particular focus on the Property Control and Analysis Division (AFM-500). The assessment should identify the additional managerial skill sets (e.g., financial accounting background, knowledge, and expertise) required to establish and strengthen the financial accounting and reporting infrastructure throughout the FAA, and once established, to effectively manage the processes, gradually correct control weakness, and produce reliable and timely financial statements throughout the year.
Improve the information technology environment applicable to the applications reviewed by implementing the specific recommendations provided in the aforementioned separate Limited Distribution Management Report.
Assign ownership responsibility to the appropriate organization within the FAA to ensure inventory is fairly stated on a going forward basis.Perform periodic reviews to ensure the accuracy of inventory accounts in terms of valuation and classification.
Develop policies and procedures to ensure new inventory items are not double-counted between inventory and the property general ledger.
Assessment of FAA's Risk-based System for Overseeing Aircraft Manufacturers' Suppli- ers 2/26/2008 Develop a risk assessment process that emphasizes suppliers of flight-critical parts (e.g., those that manufacture critical and high-volume parts or use large numbers of suppliers, etc.) for passenger aircraft. Modify its supplier audit requirements so that the number of audits that inspectors are required to conduct more directly correlates with the number of suppliers used by the prime manufacturer.
Air Traffic Control Modernization: FAA Faces Challenges in Managing Ongoing Projects, Sustaining Existing Facilities, and Introducing New Capabilities 4/14/2008 Develop written criteria for the selection of milestone metrics that are used for tracking progress with major acquisitions and reported in Agency plans and reports.Develop and report on a new set of metrics for measuring progress with NextGen initiatives that focus on the delivery of a new capability with respect to enhancing capacity, boosting productivity, or reducing Agency operating costs.Complete a gap analysis of the NAS enterprise architecture that closely examines current systems (the as is) and the planned NextGen enterprise architecture (the to be) and develop and establish priorities.Once the gap analysis is completed, develop an interim architecture that details what can be accomplished in the 2015 timeframe that will allow FAA to more accurately determine costs and other factors required for NextGen.
Alleged Cover-up of Operational Errors at DFW TRACON (Referral from the U.S. Office of Special Counsel) 4/18/2008 Require FAA's Office of Air Traffic Safety Oversight [AOV]--vice the Air Traffic Organization's Safety Services element [ATO-Safety]--to conduct comprehensive on-site, no-notice audits at FAA's Dallas-Fort Worth [DFW] Terminal Radar Approach Control [TRACON] facility.Expedite the early deployment of Traffic Analysis Review Program [TARP], a state-of-the-art automated system that detects losses of separation, at the DFW TRACON.Remove the Quality Assurance function at all Air Traffic Control facilities from the supervision of facility management.Conduct a top-to-bottom review of ATO-Safety's management, staffing, and processes.
Review of Reported Near Mid-Air Collisions [NMAC] in the New York Metropolitan Airspace 4/24/2008 Restructure the existing NMAC reporting process so that the actual safety risks posed by reported events are accurately reflected. Actions to better reflect actual safety risks could include developing a procedure to reclassify no-hazard events, redefining the NMAC criteria, or revising the term NMAC.
Review of the Air Traffic Controller Facility Training Program 6/5/2008 Include in the next update to the Controller Workforce Plan the actual number of CPCs, CPC-ITs, and developmental controllers by location to provide stakeholders with an accurate representation of the controller workforce.
Review of FAA's Safety Oversight of Airlines and Use of Regulatory Partnership Programs (Recommendations made in testimony before Congress, April 3, 2008.) N/A Implement and enforce a process for second-level supervisory review of self-disclosures before they are accepted and closed--acceptance and closure should not rest solely with one inspector.Ensure that inspectors (a) verify that air carriers take comprehensive actions to correct underlying causes of violations identified through self-disclosure programs and (b) evaluate--before accepting a new report of a previously disclosed violation--whether the carrier developed and implemented a comprehensive solution.Develop procedures for periodically rotating supervisory inspectors to ensure reliable and objective air carrier oversight.Implement post-employment guidance that includes a cooling-off period (e.g., 2 years) that prohibits an FAA inspector hired at an air carrier he or she previously inspected from acting in any type of liaison capacity between FAA and the carrier.Ensure its air carrier oversight mission clearly identifies the flying public as a primary stakeholder and beneficiary of its inspection efforts; FAA should commit to this in writing and clearly communicate it to all FAA inspection staff.Implement a process to monitor field office inspections and alert local, regional, and Headquarters management to overdue inspections so that immediate corrective actions can be taken.
Create a national review team to conduct periodic quality assurance reviews of FAA's oversight of air carriers to ensure that (a) appropriate processes and procedures are being applied consistently and (b) pertinent policies, laws and regulations are being followed.Establish an independent organization (that reports directly to the FAA Administrator or Deputy Administrator) to investigate safety issues identified by FAA employees.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIR TRAFFIC ORGANIZATION
Critical Lapse in Accountability--Operational Errors- In 2000, the Office of Inspector General [OIG] reported that the FAA's dependence on self-reporting to track operational errors placed the agency at risk of underreporting the errors. The report also warned that the FAA was not placing a high enough priority on establishing a reliable system of tracking operational errors. The report said, `FAA has been ineffective and has not shown a sense of urgency in reducing operational errors.' The FAA concurred with most of the OIG's recommendations and promised improvements.
As discussed above, in 2004, a whistleblower from the Dallas-Fort Worth TRACON revealed that operational errors at her facility were, in fact, being underreported. On February 14, 2004, the OIG reported, `[I]t took whistleblowing . . . and our probe to expose a 7-year management practice at this TRACON of improperly investigating--and therefore, underreporting--operational errors . . . The fact that this improper practice went undetected for many years raises questions as to the efficacy of management oversight performed by FAA's Southwest region, as well as headquarters elements.'
In response to the 2004 report, the FAA agreed to take a number of administrative actions to correct the problem, in 2008, the same whistleblower was required to come forward again to disclose that operational errors were still being underreported as well as misclassified as pilot errors. On June 11, 2008, the OIG reported, `We continue to receive allegations that operational errors are going unreported or in some cases intentionally misclassified. In 2007, we initiated a second investigation at the Dallas TRACON and found 62 operational errors and deviations that had been intentionally misclassified as pilot errors or `non-events.'
The number and severity of operational errors are essential measurements of aviation safety. The FAA must be able to track operational errors accurately in order to monitor safety risk at its facilities. For this reason, the Committee finds it unconscionable that FAA managers at the DFW facility would underreport and later misrepresent the number of operational errors committed under their watch. Furthermore, the Committee finds it just as disturbing that the leadership at FAA headquarters would not have been aware of the situation without the persistence and courage of a whistleblower, and that headquarters leadership was unable to end these practices immediately upon discovering them the first time.
In order to return accountability to the counting of operational errors, the FAA has accelerated the implementation of the Traffic Analysis Review Program [TARP]. TARP is designed to automatically identify potential operational errors for further investigation. According to FAA plans, TARP will be deployed at DFW before the end of 2008 and throughout the agency by the end of 2009. The TARP program is not expensive, and the FAA will spend $1,108,600 in fiscal year 2009 for its implementation. The Committee believes that TARP's highest value will be in allowing the FAA to identify potential operational errors for further review without needing to rely on self-reporting. TARP should be used to enhance the safety of the system rather than simply be used as a disciplinary tool against controllers.
The Committee notes that the OIG has recommended a number of other actions for improving the FAA's ability to track operational errors reliably. These recommendations include taking various administrative actions, establishing no-notice audits of facilities, and giving oversight responsibilities to the Office of Air Traffic Oversight [AOV]. The Committee understands that the FAA has accepted all of the OIG's recommendations and has undertaken additional strategies for improving agency accountability. The Committee expects the FAA to follow through fully on all of these safety commitments.
Air Traffic Controller Staffing and Training- The safety of the air transportation system relies on a fully staffed and well trained controller workforce. Due to the importance of this issue, the Committee continues to include a provision that requires the FAA to submit to Congress its annual air traffic controller workforce plan by March 31 of each year. Under the terms of this provision, the budget of the FAA will be fined by $100,000 for each day after March 31 that the report is not submitted.
The FAA faces an unprecedented challenge in training and replacing the air traffic controller workforce. Over the next few years, record numbers of air traffic controllers will become eligible for retirement or hit the mandatory retirement age. To maintain safe operations, the FAA must hire and train almost 17,000 new air traffic controllers over the next 10 years. Furthermore, the FAA must bring these new controllers on board while the experienced controllers are still available to train them. Finally, the FAA must manage all of these changes while still continuing to control air traffic safely with a controller workforce that is smaller and less experienced than the agency had years ago.
The Committee is concerned that the FAA is not adequately meeting this challenge. The agency is seeing a decline in the experience level of the air traffic controller workforce. While some decline in experience is to be expected as the workforce turns over, controllers have been retiring from the workforce consistently faster than the FAA has predicted.
One of the greatest challenges facing the FAA as it replaces the controller workforce is the need to maintain an appropriate ratio between experienced and trainee controllers at each individual facility. The availability of sufficiently experienced controllers at each facility is essential to the FAA's ability to train new controllers that are assigned to that facility to handle traffic at all positions. Even more troubling than the overall decline in controller experience nationwide has been the severe mismatches in experience levels that have surfaced at individual facilities.
On average, non-certified (developmental) inspectors comprise 26 percent of the controller workforce. But at the air traffic control tower at Rochester International Airport in New York, such non-certified developmental controllers represent 67 percent of the controller workforce. Roughly 40 percent of the controllers are not yet certified at the Las Vegas TRACON facility. Even at some of the FAA largest and most complex facilities, such as at LaGuardia Tower and the Denver TRACON, the percentage of non-certified developmental controllers is as high as 35 percent.
Since experienced controllers must first be utilized to control traffic before they can be made available to train new controllers, such experience mismatches at individual facilities significantly undermine the FAA's ability to adequately train and advance new controllers at those facilities. The precipitous decline in experience levels at certain facilities has required the FAA Administrator to initiate an unplanned and unbudgeted program of retention bonuses just to keep experience controllers on the payroll at certain facilities and incentivize other experienced controllers to transfer to such facilities.
To address these troubling problems, the Committee recommendation includes an additional $33,738,000 for the Air Traffic Organization over and above the FAA's budget request for activities that will have a direct impact on air traffic controller experience levels and training. Such activities may include expanded of hiring contract training instructors, paying necessary expenses related to retaining experienced controllers, paying the expenses required for attracting experienced controllers to job locations where their expertise is needed, and accelerating the pace of hiring new controllers. The Committee directs the FAA to submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a plan that details how the agency expects to spend these additional funds, and what improvements the agency expects to accomplish with this plan. The Committee directs the FAA to submit this plan within 30 days of enactment.
Mainitaining an adequately trained, experienced controller workforce is not just an issue of resources. It requires the sustained and meaningful focus of senior FAA managers. As such, the Committee is particularly disturbed to read a report from the OIG indicating that the FAA has failed to implement a number of strategies the agency identified in its first controller workforce plan back in 2004. These strategies include implementing a policy that sets training `as a priority second only to operations,' maintaining an accurate database on training, using the database to identify national and facility-level trends, and conducting a thorough review of FAA training to ensure that on-the-job training begins where training at the Academy ends. The Committee expects the FAA to implement these strategies promptly, and directs the FAA to report on the agency's progress in its next controller workforce plan.
The Committee also directs the FAA to include in its next controller workforce plan facility-by-facility information on the number of certified controllers, controllers in training, and developmental controllers. The FAA has argued that such data could only capture a snapshot in time, making the information incomplete and misleading. The Committee strongly disagrees. The FAA publishes the controller workforce plan annually, and the Committee believes that facility-level data is necessary for making year-to-year comparisons and watching for troubling trends, including severe experience mismatches at individual facilities. The Committee hopes that the FAA's reluctance to provide this information to the Congress does not reflect a general unwillingness on the part of FAA management to evaluate meaningful data and watch for relevant trends.
Finally, the Committee directs the FAA to include in its next controller workforce plan a new benchmark for each facility for evaluating the proportion of certified controllers to controllers-in-training and developmental controllers. The FAA has frequently said that it works to keep the percentage of noncertified controllers below a benchmark of 35 percent. However, this benchmark was developed to measure the number of controllers that can be processed through the Academy, not the number of controllers that can be trained at any given facility. Furthermore, as discussed above, the percentage of uncertified controllers varies greatly facility-by-facility. The Committee therefore directs the FAA to develop a relevant benchmark for assessing the experience level at each facility. The Committee cannot understand how the leadership at FAA headquarters can feel confident in its workforce plans when it does not have the appropriate benchmarks in place for measuring progress.
Training Simulators- The Committee recommendation includes $24,400,000 for NAS training simulators that will help the FAA train the growing numbers of new, inexperienced air traffic controllers in the FAA workforce. This funding level is an increase of $12,400,000 above the budget request. These additional funds will allow the FAA to purchase 14 more simulators than the agency had assumed under its budget request. The funding is provided in the `Facilities and Equipment' account.
The FAA relies on experienced, certified air traffic controllers to train its new hires, but with the experienced controllers quickly retiring from the workforce, simulators are becoming an important part of the FAA's plan for training its new hires. Using simulators improves the efficiency of FAA training because they allow developmental controllers to learn their job even at times when experienced controllers are not available for traditional on-the-job training.
Performance Based Navigation- The Committee provides $39,200,000 for Performance Based Navigation/RNAV/RNP, an increase of $4,000,000 above the budget request. Performance Based Navigation, specifically Area Navigation [RNAV] and Required Navigation Performance [RNP], is an extremely important aspect of the NextGen transportation system and an important key to minimizing delays and congestion, producing benefits in the short and intermediate term. These procedures cut down on emissions, fuel burn, and noise, and can potentially save system uses millions of dollars per year by allowing aircraft to fly routes other than those dictated by the traditional point-to-point ground based navigational aid system that has existed since the dawn of commercial aviation. These procedures can also be used to de-conflict arrivals and departures into and out of congested airspace containing closely spaced airports. The procedures can also minimize the potential for mid-air collisions in densely packed airspace. RNAV and RNP procedures can also be used to navigate into and out of airports in mountainous terrain, such as Juneau, Alaska, or near sensitive restricted airspace, such as at Reagan National Airport in Washington, DC.
Considering the myriad benefits of all forms of Performance Based Navigation and the importance to NextGen to the future of the National Airspace System, the Committee is disappointed that the FAA does not indicate how much is requested for the RNAV/RNP group within the Air Traffic Organization in the agency's budget justification documentation submitted to Congress. Also, considering that funding is spread between three different offices to carry out the mission of Performance Based Navigation, it becomes very difficult for the public, Congress, and even agency personnel to be able to track the performance and spending history of this critical office. While Systems Operations, Aviation System Standards, and Flight Standards all have legitimate reasons for being involved in the RNAV/RNP process, this organizational structure creates an overly bureaucratic tangle for funding oversight and policy implementation. The Committee directs FAA to include in future budget submissions a dedicated section within the Air Traffic Organization that details the funding requested for the Performance Based Navigation program from all sources and the number of new procedures that will be developed from the requested funding amounts. The Committee also directs that the FAA provide biannual reports to the Committee on the number of procedures developed, the average cost of procedure development, and all steps taken to streamline the procedure approval process and reduce the amount of time it takes to develop and certify new procedures.
With the additional funds provided for RNAV/RNP, the Committee directs that Systems Operations and associated offices focus on the process of developing new RNAV and RNP procedures in the terminal environment of the 35 airports of the Operational Evolution Plan. The Committee understands that new procedures, as opposed to `overlays' of existing or previously developed routings, take a considerably longer amount of time to develop due to existing airspace constraints and other factors. In addition to new procedures, the additional funds shall also be used to optimize airspace to make full utilization of RNAV/RNP technology.
Medallion Program- The Committee recommends $2,500,000 to continue the Medallion program, a Government and industry cooperative program to improve rural air safety in Alaska. The program is an enhanced safety management system that takes a business-like approach to safety, through the use of system safety concepts such as: hazard identification and risk management, sharing of operational control responsibilities, and the development of safety objectives. As air travel is sometimes the only means to access remote areas in Alaska, this program trains aviators in the diverse hazardous conditions Alaskan pilots face in order to sustain an elevated level of safety performance.
TRACON Security Staffing- The Committee is concerned about the lack of appropriate security staffing at the Terminal Radar Approach Control facility in Seattle, Washington. Security staffing is vital to ensure the safety of controllers at this facility and smooth functioning of air traffic control in and around the Puget Sound region. The Committee directs the agency to evaluate this staffing shortfall and allocate the appropriate level of security staffing resources at this facility.
AVIATION SAFETY
Critical Lapse in Safety Accountability- In 2007, an FAA safety inspector came forward as a whistleblower and reported that his immediate supervisor had knowingly allowed Southwest Airlines to carry passengers on certain aircraft long after they had missed mandatory inspection deadlines. After a thorough audit, the DOT Office of Inspector General [OIG] found that the supervisor maintained an inappropriate and `cozy' relationship with Southwest Airlines, helping the airline avoid FAA rules and enforcement actions. The supervisor prevented his safety inspector from doing his job and conducting inspections of Southwest Airlines. The supervisor also allowed Southwest Airlines to self-disclose safety violations even though the FAA was already aware of the problem, and the airline continued to violate the rule even after the self-disclosure. These circumstances break the rules of the self-disclosure program.
Even as Congress and the public were discovering the true extent of the problem, the FAA denied that it was anything more than the work of a few `bad apples.' The Committee, however, believes that the incident reveals several systemic failures of the FAA, including the failure of FAA managers to honor their role as regulators of aviation safety, encouraging their safety inspectors to view airlines as `customers' rather than regulated entities; the failure of the leadership at FAA headquarters to pay attention to the performance of its field offices the failure of the FAA to follow the rules of its own self-disclosure programs; and the failure of FAA managers to support and protect their own inspectors--yanking inspectors from their duties after receiving anonymous and unsubstantiated complaints from the airlines.
As the Committee continued to look into this incident, it became clear that the FAA's inspection lapses extended well beyond Southwest Airlines. In testimony before the Committee, the Administrator conceded that the FAA was behind schedule in completing safety inspections for a number of other airlines. The Administrator committed to providing specific data on how many airlines have missed inspections, and which inspections were overdue. When it arrived, the Committee was dismayed to discover that a total of eight airlines had over 100 overdue safety inspections. Some of these inspections were in high priority areas such as `aircraft worthiness,' and `major repairs and alterations.'
The FAA Administrator has personally committed himself to ensuring that these inspections will be completed. He testified before the Committee, saying, `I'm giving you my word that we're going to address this [that certain inspections were not done for nine years] and have a national oversight capability in as timely a manner as possible.'.
The missed inspections raise serious questions about the ability of FAA headquarters to oversee the operation of its field offices. In the case of Southwest Airlines, the FAA supervisor gave higher priority to serving the airline than to safeguarding the American public. The missed inspections should have served as the first sign to FAA headquarters that there were even larger problems with the field office's oversight of the airline. The Committee therefore expects the FAA to complete all of the inspections that are currently overdue, and more importantly, to investigate any other cases of missed inspections or lax oversight in order to uncover more serious problems in the future.
In response to the disclosure of these problems, the FAA is upgrading the Air Transportation Safety Oversight System [ATOS], the database program the agency uses to manage its risk-based safety regime. The FAA has also said that data from the ATOS system will be regularly reported to agency headquarters. The agency has increased accountability of the voluntary disclosure program by requiring airline executives and higher levels of FAA managers to sign off on relevant documents. The FAA also launched a well publicized series of inspections to determine compliance with its most important Airworthiness Directives [ADs], the critical safety rules that Southwest Airlines had violated. The Committee will discuss some of these actions in greater detail below.
The Committee agrees that the FAA needs to take strong action following such a critical lapse in its safety oversight. However, the Committee does not believe that actions taken after the problems at Southwest and other airlines were disclosed in any way mitigates the personal responsibility of FAA leadership. The FAA had ample warning that its ATOS system did not catch significant holes in its inspection process. In 2002, the OIG reported, `Since early 1999, FAA has been aware of problems with ATOS. However, the agency has been slow in taking corrective actions to address known problems.' The OIG reported again in 2005, `In fiscal year 2003 when air carriers were making significant changes to streamline operations and reduce costs, inspectors for five network air carriers were reviewed did not complete 26 percent of their planned inspections. Of the inspections not completed, 55 percent were in areas of the air carrier's operation that were identified as being at risk.'
FAA leadership also had many opportunities to determine that the culture of safety had broken down in the office in charge of inspecting Southwest Airlines. The safety inspector tried to notify FAA leadership many times before turning to the whistleblower process in order to ensure that his story would be heard.
Finally, it was particularly disappointing to learn that critical safety inspections were not being done by FAA inspectors. The Committee has provided extra funding over and above the FAA budget request in 7 of at least 10 years to boost the number of inspectors and ensure that such critical inspections would be completed routinely while the administration has committed to complicity all such overdue inspections within a year.
The Committee cannot wait a year before learning that the FAA has not made sufficient progress in bringing these inspections up to date. Therefore, the Committee directs the FAA to provide quarterly reports to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations that lists all overdue safety attribute inspections and element performance inspections, and provides a target date of their completion.
Use of Data by FAA Headquarters- As discussed above, in order to improve the ability of FAA headquarters to oversee the work of its field offices, the FAA is requiring field offices to regularly report ATOS data to headquarters staff. However, this requirement will not result in any improvements unless managers at FAA headquarters actually analyze this data and manage the inspector workforce accordingly. The Committee therefore directs the OIG to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations that verifies that this data is being submitted to FAA headquarters, describes the analysis conducted by headquarters staff using this data, and evaluates the effectiveness of FAA's use of this data to monitor the work of FAA field offices. The Committee directs the OIG to submit this report within 6 months of enactment.
Demonstrations of AD Compliance- As discussed above, following the lapse in safety oversight of Southwest Airlines, the FAA ran a well publicized series of inspections to determine compliance with its most important ADs. Although American Airlines believed its aircraft were in full compliance with FAA directives, the audit uncovered problems with the airline's compliance with an AD that proscribes fixes to the wiring on MD-80 aircraft. While the FAA had already granted American Airlines 18 months to fix the wiring problem, the environment following the disclosure of the safety lapses of Southwest resulted in FAA immediately grounding its fleet of MD-80s. The cancellation of hundreds of flights resulted in sever travel disruptions to hundreds of thousands of travelers the urgent round of audits that followed the Southwest incident. Without conducting this audit, however, it is likely that the FAA would not have discovered the problem for months or perhaps years. No physical inspections were conducted or scheduled for MD-80s to ensure compliance with this AD prior to its random selection as part of the system-wide audit.
It is clear that a process must be developed that allows certificate holders to demonstrate their interpretation of AD compliance and for FAA inspection personnel to have the opportunity to conduct physical inspections of aircraft to verify compliance. Only through such a process can the disruptions that befell the American Airlines passengers be avoided. The Committee has learned that the Secretary of Transportation's independent panel reviewing all aspects of the airworthiness directive compliance regime is examining a prototype process for certificate holders to demonstrate compliance. The Committee directs the FAA and DOT to continue to work towards developing an AD prototype process that incorporates the Committee's concerns and to report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations immediately upon developing a prototype process.
Safety Inspector Staffing- Aviation Safety requires a fully staffed inspector workforce. For this reason, the Committee continues to include a provision that requires the FAA to submit to Congress its annual inspector workforce plan by March 31 of each year. Under the terms of this provision, the budget of the FAA will be fined by $100,000 for each day after March 31 that the report is not submitted.
The Committee continues to be concerned about the FAA's ability to reach its staffing goals. The Committee believes that the FAA benefits from meeting its goals through a planned, regular hiring process rather than through hiring surges at the end of the fiscal year. The figure below shows recent history for Flight Standards and Aircraft Certification staffing levels as well as the staffing goals for fiscal years 2008 and 2009. While the Committee notes that the FAA appears to be in a good position for reaching its goals for the current fiscal year it is dismayed the agency failed to prepare for fiscal year 2009 by budgeting adequately for the additional inspections that the Committee provided over and above the FAA's budget request for fiscal year 2008. As discussed below, the Committee has made the necessary budget adjustments to rectify this problem.
Increased Resources for Safety Oversight- The Committee recommendation includes an additional $32,000,000 that was not included in the original FAA budget request submitted by the FAA. This additional funding will help the FAA increase its safety inspection staff by 75 positions, improve its safety surveillance, and replace funding for other vital safety activities that have been displaced by the agency's urgent need to increase its inspection activities. The Committee directs the FAA to allocate the additional funding as presented in the following table:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity Amount
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualize additional positions added in fiscal year 2008:
125 positions added through appropriations act $8,500,000
57 positions added during the year 8,400,000
Increase surveillance activity:
75 additional safety inspection positions 6,400,000
Support for the inspector staffing model 1,000,000
Increased review of alternative means of compliance 320,000
Repair, Alteration, and Fabrication initiatives 2,000,000
Continued airworthiness and safety improvements 900,000
Support safety issues reporting system and whistleblower activities 200,000
Replace funding for displaced work:
Aircraft certification 800,000
Element Performance Inspections 3,480,000
Total 32,000,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee believes that the administration's budget submission for aviation safety is irresponsible and lacks credibility. At the time it was developing its budget request for fiscal year 2009, the FAA was already well aware of the critical lapses in its oversight regime. Even so, the FAA failed to request the funding necessary to bring its inspection staffing level up to a level necessary and to implement improvements to its oversight programs.
The Committee is particularly galled to note that the budget request submitted by the FAA does not include enough funding to annualize the cost of increases to the inspector workforce that the Committee provided for fiscal year 2008. The Committee does not understand how the FAA could decide to put its inspection capabilities at risk by not requesting the funds necessary to pay the full cost of the inspectors' salaries.
For fiscal year 2009, the Committee is again providing increases to the FAA budget request in order to strengthen the inspector workforce. The additional funding is provided because supporting the inspector workforce continues to be a high priority for the Committee, and it is hoped that it will become a higher priority for the administration. The Committee expects the FAA to include the fully annualized the cost of the additional inspectors in its fiscal year 2010 budget request. However, if the administration chooses not to fund the cost of these inspectors, then the Committee directs the FAA to display accurately the proposed changes to the program's base, to disclose how many inspector positions would be affected by this proposal, and to fully justify the proposed cut to the inspector workforce.
Finally, the Committee directs the FAA to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations that delineates changes to the number of inspectors currently on board with the agency from the beginning of fiscal year 2009 until March 31, 2009. The report should provide side-by-side displays of number of inspector losses opposite the number of inspector gains. The Committee directs the FAA to transmit this report to the Committee by April 10, 2009.
Inspector Workload- The Committee agrees with the FAA, the OIG, and the Government Accountability Office that the FAA must use a risk-based system in order to effectively oversee the safety of the aviation industry, which is growing in size and complexity every year. A risk-based approach still requires physical inspections, but it significantly changes the balance of work completed at the desk and in the field.
Since the FAA first began implementing its risk-based system and deploying the ATOS database, questions have been raised about whether or not the FAA has struck the right balance between the time inspectors field inspections the time they spend reviewing airline paperwork data analysis. Such questions have grown more pressing since the disclosure of the FAA's safety lapses.
The Committee believes that these questions cannot be answered until the FAA can inform the debate with essential information. The Committee directs the FAA to convene a working group that will develop a benchmark against which to measure the amount of time FAA safety inspectors spend in the field. The Committee directs the FAA to include representatives from the safety inspector workforce in this working group. This benchmark should provide the FAA with a floor against which to measure actual the workload of FAA inspectors and determines whether sufficient field inspections are being conducted at each facility. Should the FAA find that safety inspectors are not spending a sufficient amount of time conducting field work, the agency will complete further investigations as to the cause and implications of its findings. Finally, the Committee directs the FAA to include this benchmark and the actual measurement in its next inspector workforce plan.
Inspector Staffing Model- The FAA has acknowledged that it does not have an adequate methodology for locating its safety inspectors in the field. This issue has particular relevance as air carriers continue to outsource an unprecedented level of repair work. This outsourced work includes significant repairs as well as ongoing maintenance, and the work is frequently completed overseas. These complications underscore the need to for the FAA to understand where the work is being done and to have a rigorous methodology for placing its safety inspectors around the globe.
The FAA is currently developing a complex staffing model to help the agency determine how many inspectors it needs on board and where those inspectors should be placed. In fiscal year 2009, the FAA expects to complete the research that will support its staffing model, identify commercial software for running the model, and begin customizing the software for the agency's particular needs. The Committee expects the FAA to keep to this schedule, and as noted above, the Committee has provided an additional $1,000,000 to expedite the completion of the model.
Prohibition on NY/NJ Area Slot Auctions- On May 16, 2008, the Department of Transportation issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [NPRM] that addressed restrictions pertaining to commercial aircraft operations in the New York/New Jersey area. The proposed rule, among other things, proposed to maintain agency-imposed caps on the number of permissible aircraft operations at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) as well as Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR). A separate cap is already in place at LaGuardia Airport (LGA). The imposition of these caps has been a central element in the DOT's effort to reduce congestion in and around the New York/New Jersey airspace--one of the busiest areas of air traffic in the world. Given the extraordinary percentage of flights that traverse the New York/New Jersey airspace, it is hoped that such efforts to reduce the number of flights in this region will also serve to alleviate congestion throughout the national airspace system [NAS].
Separate from the imposition of aircraft operations caps, the DOT's NPRM also seeks to impose a highly controversial `slot auction' system for these same airports. The initiative would not serve to further limit aircraft operations. Rather, it would seek merely to reallocate landing and take-off slots between the air carriers serving the region by auctioning off a percentage of these slots to the highest bidders.
The Committee has serious questions regarding both the legality and the wisdom of this aspect of the DOT's proposed rule. First, the annual DOT Appropriations Act has long included a provision that prohibits the FAA from finalizing or implementing any regulation that would promulgate new aviation user fees not specifically authorized by law. Aspects of the new NPRM certainly appear to violate this long-standing restriction. Indeed, even the DOT itself has questioned its legal standing to put forward this proposal. In a Federal Register notice dated August 29, 2006, the DOT stated that `[L]egislation would be necessary to employ market-based approaches such as auctions or congestion pricing at LaGuardia because the FAA currently does not have the statutory authority to assess market-clearing charges for a landing or departure authorization.'
The Committee believes strongly that a comprehensive policy change such as the slot auction proposal should be considered and debated as part of comprehensive aviation authorization legislation, not through a controversial and illegal rulemaking process promulgated by an outgoing administration. As such, the Committee has included a provision (Sec. 116) that prohibits DOT from finalizing the slot auction aspects of its NPRM. Nothing in that prohibition will serve to limit the DOT's ability to impose either voluntary or mandatory operational caps for the purpose of truly addressing aviation congestion in the New York/New Jersey area.
FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)
| Appropriations, 2008 | $2,513,611,000 |
| Budget estimate, 2009 | 2,724,000,000 |
| Committee recommendation | 2,749,595,000 |
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Facilities and Equipment [F&E] appropriation provides funding for modernizing and improving air traffic control and airway facilities, equipment, and systems. The appropriation also finances major capital investments required by other agency programs, experimental research and development facilities, and other improvements to enhance the safety and capacity of the national airspace system [NAS]. The program aims to keep pace with the increasing demands of aeronautical activity and remain in accordance with the Federal Aviation Administration's comprehensive 5-year capital investment plan [CIP].
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,749,595,000 for the Facilities and Equipment of the Federal Aviation Administration. The Committee recommendation is $25,595,000 more than the budget estimate and $235,984,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. The bill provides that $2,288,845,000 shall be available for obligation until September 30, 2011, and $460,500,000 shall be available until September 30, 2009.
FAA's Modernization Performance- About 30 years ago, the FAA began a massive effort to modernize its air traffic control system. Before the end of fiscal year 2008, the cost of this modernization is expected to reach over $50,000,000,000. Over the course of the past three decades, however, the FAA has developed a track record of cost overruns, schedule delays, and unmet expectations. Some of these problems can be attributed to the complex nature of the undertaking, but the FAA still shoulders much of the responsibility. The agency has repeatedly done a poor job of defining the requirements and cost estimates for its modernization programs.
The FAA now must continue to upgrade the existing air traffic control system at the same time that it starts a new effort to completely transform that system with satellite-based technology and network-centric operations. The demand for air transportation will soon outgrow the capacity of the current system. The FAA effort to develop a completely new way to manage the national airspace system [NAS] is already decades late. Given the complexity and the expense that this new effort will entail, American taxpayers cannot afford the FAA to repeat the mistakes of its past.
The Committee feels encouraged by signs that the FAA is improving its management of capital programs. In a recent report on the modernization of the current air traffic control system, the OIG offers some commendation, saying, `Overall, we found that FAA has done a better job of managing cost growth and schedule delays with its major acquisitions since we last reported.' The Committee also notes that the FAA has just lowered its budget for the Air Traffic Control Beacon Interrogator Replacement program by about $27,000,000 while adding to its current workload. In addition, the FAA this year added sites to the Free Flight Phase II program while keeping to its current budget.
Although these changes are small in comparison to the billions of dollars of cost growth that the FAA has allowed in the past, they are welcome signs of improved management.
Incremental Investments and Rebaselining- In its report on FAA management of its modernization program, the OIG explains that the FAA has been able to improve its track record on cost and schedule growth in part by taking `a more incremental approach to investment decisions to modernize controller displays, radars, and communication equipment.' The OIG further explains that `rebaselining' procedures have also served to help the FAA control costs and schedule delays. The FAA rebaselines all programs in danger of exceeding their budgets or schedules by 10 percent or more. This process requires the FAA to conduct a complete analysis of the program's current costs and benefits, and to provide a new justification for the program before proceeding any further.
Last year, the Committee condemned the FAA for using the rebaselining procedures as a way to obscure the failure of the FAA to stay within program budgets and schedules. The then-FAA Administrator had been publicly boasting that she was delivering 100 percent of her programs on time and on budget, even though many of those programs had been rebaselined after experiencing significant increases in their costs and lengthy delays in their schedules. The Committee was focused on the abuse of the rebaselining process, not on its appropriate use as a program management tool. The Committee is aware that active oversight of capital programs, such as rebaselining, has proven an effective tool against expanding costs and schedules.
The OIG has cautioned, however, that an incremental approach and rebaselining procedures are not without drawbacks, and they are vulnerable to abuse. The FAA is able to mitigate risk in the near term, but breaking programs into smaller parts also means that the end goal and the overall costs become difficult to track and mask the fact that system users and taxpayers are getting less than was originally promised. Past examples of how these approaches can be abused include the ASR-11 radar program. FAA rebaselined the program in 2005, breaking it into two segments. The first segment will produce 66 systems for $697,000,000 by fiscal year 2009, whereas the original program was expected to produce 112 systems for $743,000,000 by 2005. The cost went down, but fewer systems are being delivered and at a later date. Furthermore, FAA is postponing any investment decisions on the second segment of the program.
Incrementalism and NextGen- The Committee notes that the challenges facing the FAA as it works to transform the air transportation system cannot be easily addressed with rebaselining procedures. For the `next generation' air transportation system, or `NextGen,' the FAA must translate initial concepts and ideas into real programs with specific requirements, milestones, and cost estimates. These programs will be expensive and far more complex than what the FAA has completed to date.
The Committee is concerned that an incremental approach to program management will not serve the agency well as it develops NextGen. The Committee believes that the FAA must be able to track its investments against a clear endgame in order to transform the system efficiently and affordably. The Committee believes that the FAA is already failing to reach for new capabilities when it makes investment decisions for two programs in the agency's portfolio: Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast [ADS-B] and System-Wide Information Management [SWIM]. These programs will likely form the foundation for NextGen, but the FAA is not putting enough emphasis on achieving new capabilities. These programs will be discussed in greater detail below.
Finally, the Committee notes that the FAA has not yet brought detail to how the agency will accomplish the NextGen transformation. According to the OIG, the FAA must develop an Enterprise Architecture that will serve as a technical roadmap to NextGen, showing how the system will work and what changes are necessary to make that happen. Although the FAA is currently developing such an Enterprise Architecture, the planning documents for NextGen still lack detail. The FAA can not yet delineate its requirements or develop realistic cost estimates. For this reason, the Committee does not feel confident that the FAA knows how to it will move from the current system to NextGen.
To help the FAA establish a more clear path toward NextGen, the OIG recommends `that FAA develop and track written criteria for selecting project milestones that are used to track Agency progress with major acquisitions; develop metrics for measuring NextGen progress that focus on enhancing capacity, boosting productivity, or reducing Agency operating costs; complete a gap analysis of the current NAS and planned NextGen enterprise architectures; and establish an interim architecture to establish priorities that will allow FAA to accurately determine costs and NextGen requirements.' The Committee urges the FAA to follow the recommendations of the OIG in a timely manner.
The Committee has included bill language requiring the FAA to conduct a gap analysis, set midterm goals for the completion of NextGen, and develop the interim architecture that will allow the FAA achieve those midterm goals by 2017. The interim architecture must include the estimated cost of each new capability that the FAA will achieve by 2017. The bill requires the FAA to submit this interim architecture at the same time as the President's budget submission to the Congress.
Increased Capacity and NextGen- Considering the fact that the primary goal of NextGen is to triple capacity by the year 2025, the Committee is extremely troubled by the fact that none of the budget justifications, planning documents, or enterprise architecture documents detail how each initiative in NextGen will reduce delays and congestion between now and 2025.
The Committee directs the FAA and the Joint Planning and Development Office [JPDO] to include in future budget justifications and NextGen planning documents a full explanation and quantitative estimate of how much each new capability will reduce congestion, increase capacity and decrease delays, an explanation of how the data was modeled and compiled, and a timeframe for when these capacity improvements and delay reduction measures will start to relieve congestion.
Budget Activities Format- The Committee directs that the fiscal year 2010 budget request for the Facilities and Equipment account conform to the same organizational structure of budget activities as displayed below.
The Committee's recommended distribution of funds for each of the budget activities funded by the appropriation follows:
FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2008 enacted Fiscal year 2009 estimate Committee recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity 1, Engineering, Development, Test and Evaluation:
Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping $42,760,000 $41,400,000 $42,900,000
Traffic Management Advisor [TMA] 15,400,000 3,700,000 3,700,000
NAS Improvement of System Support Laboratory 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
William J. Hughes Technical Center Facilities 12,000,000 12,000,000 12,000,000
William J. Hughes Technical Center Infrastructure Sustainment 4,200,000 5,400,000 5,400,000
Next Generation Network Enabled Weather 7,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000
Data Communications for Trajectory Based Operations [NGATS] 7,400,000 28,800,000 28,800,000
Next Generation Transportation System Technology Demonstra- tion 50,000,000 28,000,000 28,000,000
Next Generation Transportation System--System Development 41,400,000 41,400,000
Next Generation Transportation System--Trajectory Based Operations 39,500,000 39,500,000
Next Generation Transportation System--Weather Reduction Impact 14,400,000 14,400,000
Next Generation Transportation System--High Density Arrivals/Departures 18,200,000 18,200,000
Next Generation Transportation System--Collaborative ATM 27,700,000 27,700,000
Next Generation Transportation System--Flexible Terminals and Airports 37,100,000 37,100,000
Next Generation Transportation System--Safety Security and Environment 8,000,000 8,000,000
Next Generation Transportation System--Networked Facilities 17,000,000 17,000,000
Safeflight 21--Capstone 15,000,000
Next Generation Integrated Airport 1,960,000
ADS-B Air to Air Capabilities 9,350,000
ADS-B Three Nautical Mile Separation 6,765,000
Total, Activity 1 166,070,000 343,600,000 351,865,000
Activity 2, Air Traffic Control Facilities and Equipment:
En Route Programs:
En Route Automation Modernization [ERAM] 368,750,000 203,050,000 203,050,000
En Route Communications Gateway [ECG] 4,000,000 7,400,000 7,400,000
Next Generation Weather Radar [NEXRAD]--Provide 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000
Air Traffic Control System Command Center [ATCSCC]--Relocation 2,500,000 28,600,000 28,600,000
ARTCC Building Improvements/Plant Improvements 52,900,000 56,500,000 56,500,000
Air Traffic Management (ATM) 90,600,000 90,200,000 90,200,000
Air/Ground Communications Infrastructure 26,200,000 7,500,000 7,500,000
ATC Beacon Interrogator [ATCBI]--Replacement 20,200,000 13,000,000 13,000,000
Air Traffic Control En Route Radar Facilities Improvements 5,300,000 5,300,000 5,300,000
Voice Switching and Control System [VSCS] 15,700,000 23,300,000 23,300,000
Oceanic Automation System 53,100,000 20,700,000 20,700,000
Corrider Weather Integrated System [CWIS] 2,100,000 5,900,000 5,900,000
San Juan Radar Approach Control [CERAP] 8,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000
Next Generation Very High Frequency Air/Ground Communications System [NEXCOM] 30,400,000 46,400,000 46,400,000
System-Wide Information Management 23,358,000 41,000,000 49,000,000
ADS-B NAS Wide Implementation 85,650,000 300,000,000 300,000,000
En Route System Modification 4,300,000
Federal Telecommunications Infrastructure 8,500,000
ATOMS Local Area/Wide Area Network 3,500,000
Military Operations/Automated Detection and Processing Terminal [ADAPT] 1,600,000
Automated Detection and Processing Terminal [ADAPT] 1,000,000
Volcano Monitoring 2,666,000
Wind Hazard Detection Equipment 784,000 850,000
Subtotal, En Route Programs 814,108,000 857,850,000 866,700,000
Terminal Programs:
Airport Surface Detection Equipment--Model X [ASDE-X] 40,600,000 32,700,000 32,700,000
Terminal Doppler Weather Radar [TDWR]--Provide 8,000,000 6,100,000 6,100,000
Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System [STARS] (TAMR Phase 1) 31,200,000 28,200,000 28,200,000
Terminal Automation Modernization/Replacement Program (TAMR Phase 3) 6,800,000 3,000,000 3,000,000
Terminal Automation Program 2,300,000 4,300,000 4,300,000
Terminal Air Traffic Control Facilities--Replace 162,630,000 134,295,476 134,545,476
ATCT/Terminal Radar Approach Control [TRACON] Facilities--Improve 47,000,000 37,900,000 37,900,000
Terminal Voice Switch Replacement [TVSR] 12,300,000 8,400,000 8,400,000
NAS Facilities OSHA and Environmental Standards Compliance 26,000,000 26,000,000 26,000,000
Airport Surveillance Radar [ASR-9] 11,200,000 8,800,000 8,800,000
Terminal Digital Radar [ASR-11] 20,300,000 17,100,000 17,100,000
DOD/FAA Facilities Transfer 1,300,000 1,400,000 1,400,000
Precision Runway Monitors 9,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
Runway Status Lights 9,000,000 26,960,000 26,960,000
National Airspace System Voice Switch [NVS] 3,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000
Weather System Processor [WSP] 4,100,000 700,000 700,000
Voice Recorder Replacement Program [VRRP] 10,500,000 10,800,000 10,800,000
Houston Area Air Traffic System [HAATS] 4,000,000 3,600,000 3,600,000
Integrated Display System [IDS] 7,000,000 7,000,000
ASR-8 Service Life Extension Program 3,000,000 3,000,000
Integrated Terminal Weather System [ITWS] 13,200,000 4,500,000 4,500,000
Integrated Control and Monitoring 1,960,000
Multilateration Air Traffic Surveillance 686,000
ASR-8 Radar Relocation 980,000
ASDE-X Relocation and Upgrade--Sea-Tac 4,900,000
Subtotal, Terminal Programs 430,956,000 375,755,476 376,005,476
Flight Service Programs:
Automated Surface Observing System [ASOS] 5,000,000 8,500,000 8,500,000
Flight Service Station [FSS] Modernization 5,100,000 14,600,000 14,600,000
Weather Camera Program (moved from Safeflight) 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Subtotal, Flight Service Programs 12,100,000 25,100,000 25,100,000
Landing and Navigational Aids Program:
VHF Omnidirectional Radio Range [VOR] with Distance Measuring Equipment [DME] 5,000,000 7,500,000 7,500,000
Instrument Landing System [ILS]--Establish 15,094,000 7,500,000 7,750,000
Wide Area Augmentation System [WAAS] for GPS 105,900,000 99,000,000 92,570,000
Runway Visual Range [RVR] 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
Approach Lighting System Improvement Program [ALSIP] 19,312,000 10,000,000 12,500,000
Distance Measuring Equipment [DME] 5,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000
Visual NAVAIDS--Establish/Expand 3,500,000 1,700,000 1,700,000
Instrument Flight Procedures Automation [IFPA] 17,800,000 10,900,000 10,900,000
Navigation and Landing Aids--Service Life Extension Program [SLEP] 5,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
VASI Replacement--Replace with Precision Approach Path Indicator 3,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
GPS Civil Requirements 20,700,000 20,700,000
Subtotal, Landing and Navigational Aids Programs 184,606,000 173,300,000 169,620,000
Other ATC Facilities Programs:
Fuel Storage Tank Replacement and Monitoring 5,900,000 6,100,000 6,100,000
Unstaffed Infrastructure Sustainment 13,700,000 15,300,000 15,300,000
Air Navigational Aids and ATC Facilities (Local Projects) 3,000,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
Aircraft Related Equipment Program 9,000,000 7,400,000 7,400,000
Aircraft Related Equipment Program--Boeing Simulator Replacement 800,000 400,000 400,000
Airport Cable Loop Systems--Sustained Support 5,000,000 7,000,000 7,000,000
Alaskan NAS Interfacility Communications System [ANICS] 2,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
Facilities Decommissioning 5,400,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
Electrical Power Systems--Sustain/Support 38,000,000 51,000,000 51,000,000
Aircraft Fleet Modernization--International Aircraft 24,900,000 24,900,000
Aircraft Fleet Modernization 9,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000
Computer Engineering and Graphics [CAEG] Modernization 1,500,000
Energy Management and Efficiency Compliance 2,000,000
Subtotal, Other ATC Facilities Programs 95,300,000 126,600,000 126,600,000
Total, Activity 2 1,537,070,000 1,558,605,476 1,563,775,476
Activity 3, Non-Air Traffic Control Facilities and Equipment:
Support Equipment:
Hazardous Materials Management 18,200,000 18,000,000 18,000,000
Aviation Safety Analysis System [ASAS] 16,900,000 18,900,000 18,900,000
Logistics Support Systems and Facilities [LSSF] 6,300,000 9,300,000 9,300,000
National Air Space [NAS] Recovery Communications [RCOM] 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000
Facility Security Risk Management 22,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000
Information Security 15,000,000 12,000,000 12,000,000
System Approach for Safety Oversight [SASO] 11,300,000 14,300,000 14,300,000
Aviation Safety Knowledge Management Environment [ASKME] 4,000,000 7,900,000 7,900,000
Aeronautical Center Infrastructure Modernization 5,393,000 13,500,000 13,500,000
National Airspace System [NAS] Training Facilities 1,900,000 1,400,000 1,400,000
Distance Learning 1,400,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
Test Equipment--Maintenance for Replacement 2,500,000
Center for Aviation Research 2,250,000
Subtotal, Support Equipment 117,143,000 121,800,000 121,800,000
Training, Equipment, and Facilities:
National Airspace System [NAS] Training--Simulator 14,600,000 12,000,000 24,400,000
Subtotal, Training, Equipment, and Facilities 14,600,000 12,000,000 24,400,000
Total, Activity 3 131,743,000 133,800,000 146,200,000
Activity 4, Facilities and Equipment Mission Support:
System Support and Services:
System Engineering and Development Support 30,155,000 32,000,000 32,000,000
Program Support Leases 40,000,000 43,504,524 43,504,524
Logistics Support Services [LSS] 7,500,000 7,900,000 7,900,000
Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center Leases 13,500,000 15,800,000 15,800,000
Transition Engineering Support 10,700,000 10,700,000 10,700,000
Frequency and Spectrum Engineering 3,400,000 3,500,000 3,500,000
Technical Support Services Contract [TSSC] 20,000,000 22,000,000 22,000,000
Resource Tracking Program [RTP] 3,500,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
Center for Advanced Aviation System Development [CAASD] 80,000,000 76,000,000 76,000,000
Aeronautical Information Management Program 9,000,000 11,600,000 11,600,000
Permanent Change of Station Moves 1,000,000
Total, Activity 4 218,755,000 227,004,524 227,004,524
Activity 5, Personnel and Related Expenses:
Personnel and Related Expenses--ATO 459,973,000 460,500,000 460,500,000
Total, All Activities 2,513,611,000 2,723,510,000 2,749,595,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENGINEERING, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
Runway Obstruction Warning System- The Committee recommends $42,900,000 for Advanced Technology Development and Prototype, an increase of $1,500,000 from the budget request. The additional resources shall be used to fund the continued development, enhancement, and evaluation of the Runway Obstruction Warning system at the test bed at Gulfport-Biloxi Airport.
ADS-B- The Committee recommendation includes an additional $6,765,000 to accelerate the development of three nautical mile separation in the en route environment, using Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast [ADS-B] technology. The administration did not request any funding for this activity in fiscal year 2009.
The FAA has identified ADS-B as a `transformational' program for developing the next generation air transportation system. Under the ADS-B program, the FAA is developing satellite-based technology that will allow aircraft to broadcast their precise location, identification, and flight plan information to ground facilities as well as to other aircraft.
Last year, the Committee grew concerned that the FAA was maintaining a short-sighted view of the ADS-B program by focusing its resources on developing ground-to-air capabilities without laying an adequate foundation for implementing air-to-air capabilities. Because of these concerns, the Committee provided an additional $9,300,000 for the FAA to expedite the development of such air-to-air capabilities. After close consultation with the FAA, the Committee refined its directions to the agency, giving explicit instructions that the FAA use the additional funds for applying ADS-B technology to the prevention of runway incursions and the improvement of arrival rates.
The Committee, however, remains concerned that the FAA defines its objectives for the ADS-B program too narrowly. The FAA has designed the base program for ADS-B so that the technology will merely replicate the capabilities that radar technology already provides. The FAA has argued that this method will prove the potential of ADS-B before requiring the technology to perform additional functions. This sort of approach is a conservative strategy, using current capabilities as a benchmark for success rather than the new capabilities that air transportation will soon need.
Unfortunately, the FAA must complete the transformation of air transportation within a limited timeframe, and the Committee does not believe that the FAA has the luxury of maintaining such a conservative strategy. Furthermore, by delaying the investment of its resources in new capabilities, the FAA is also postponing the time when ADS-B will produce real benefits to the larger aviation community. The Committee does not believe that the FAA should automatically structure its next generation programs so that all of these benefits accrue at the end of substantial investments. Rather, the Committee urges the FAA whenever possible to design its programs so that they can offer benefits during the course of their development and support a meaningful partnership with the aviation community.
Establishing benefits early in a program's development is especially critical for a program like ADS-B, which must rely heavily on the aviation community to equip aircraft with compatible technology. The FAA has already published an NPRM that establishes mandatory deadlines for equipping aircraft with ADS-B technology. The Committee believes these deadlines are necessary to ensure the success of the ADS-B program. However, the Committee also believes that the FAA can effectively compel the aviation industry to invest in ADS-B voluntarily by proffering benefits that can be attained only through such equipage.
If fuel prices continue at their current levels, then the FAA will have an especially hard time convincing the aviation community to invest in new technologies sooner than the regulated deadlines. Airlines today are already making unpopular choices such as cutting services and charging for baggage in order to save their businesses. Airlines and other participants in the national airspace [NAS] are not looking for new costs to pay. Before equipping with ADS-B, the industry will not only want to see that the FAA is paying its share of the expense, it will also want to see what benefits will accrue to their operations.
This year, again, the Committee is providing additional resources over and above the budget request to further the development of ADS-B capabilities. The Committee directs the FAA to use the additional $6,765,000 to accelerate the development of three nautical mile separation in the en route environment.
This closer separation standard will increase the capacity of the en route environment. It is also expected to reduce delays that occur because aircraft must transition between the terminal environment, which allows separation of 3 nautical miles, and the en route environment, which requires separation of 5 nautical miles. Because aircraft cannot instantaneously change their separation at the border of these two environments, they must transition to or from the larger separation standard while still operating in the terminal environment. Applying the 3 nautical mile separation to the en route environment would eliminate these areas of inefficiency and increase the capacity of the NAS.
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
En Route Automation Modernization- The Committee recommends $203,050,000 for the En Route Automation Modernization [ERAM] program. This funding level is equal to the budget request, and $165,700,000 less than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. Fiscal year 2008 was the peak year of funding for this program, and the annual cost of the program is expected to continue at this lower level.
Under the ERAM program, the FAA is replacing the computer network for the air traffic control facilities that manage high-altitude traffic. Modernizing this network is critical to allowing FAA to continue managing air traffic effectively. It is also an essential component of moving the FAA into the next generation of air traffic control.
The Committee commends the FAA for continuing to manage the program thus far within its budget and schedule. The success of this program depends largely on the willingness of the FAA to follow sound management practices, such as delineating all of the program requirements before signing a contract with an outside vendor. The FAA has not used these management practices as frequently or effectively on other procurement programs.
The Committee notes that the FAA is currently focusing on the largest and most complex aspects of the ERAM program. Because ERAM is expected to serve as a foundation for many other next generation automation programs, any increase in the cost of ERAM or slip in its schedule could have a direct impact on the overall pace of developing the next generation system. The Committee urges the FAA to continue following sound management practices in order to ensure the success of this important program.
System-Wide Information Management- The Committee recommends $49,000,000 for the System-Wide Information Management [SWIM] program. This funding level is $8,000,000 more than the budget request, and $25,642,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
The FAA has identified the SWIM program as one of the foundations for building the next generation air transportation system. Under SWIM, the FAA is developing a new architecture that will enable all of the individual FAA systems to communicate and share data.
The Committee continues to be supportive of the SWIM program, but the Committee is concerned that the FAA is not developing a program that will deliver on the agency's promises. The Committee understands that SWIM should provide a central architecture and include the security, governance and data exchange services that are necessary to link the other FAA programs. Yet, the FAA is directing the majority of its funding to these other programs in order to develop services in a more decentralized way. Of the $41,000,000 requested for SWIM in fiscal year 2009, the FAA proposes to redirect $27,600,000 to other capital programs. Using the funds for other capital programs appears to undermine the FAA's efforts to develop the core capabilities of the SWIM program.
The Committee also questions whether the FAA is placing a high enough priority on achieving new capabilities with the SWIM program. The SWIM program is an essential part of moving toward network-enabled operations [NEO]. NEO will make it possible for the FAA, other Government agencies, and users of the NAS to share information efficiently and effectively. Two demonstrations have already proven the concept and illustrated the many benefits of NEO, but the FAA has not requested any funds for the actual implementation of this technology.
For these reasons, the bill includes an additional $8,000,000 to begin implementation of the Network Enabled Operations [NEO] program. The Committee directs the FAA to use these funds on the deployment of new capabilities that will begin providing benefits to the larger aviation community, including: dynamic use of special use airspace; use of dynamic airspace control for temporary flight restrictions that accommodates the movement of unmanned aerial systems; network-enabled distribution of enhanced traffic management system information for improved common situation awareness between authorized subscribers; and targeted NEO applications for contingency operations to distribute integrated information to authorized, on-site, State and local organizations.
The Committee directs the FAA to submit to the Committee a report which details how the FAA plans to spend the $8,000,000 and which capabilities the FAA will deploy with the funding. The Committee further directs the FAA to submit to the Committee a report that provides a thorough discussion on the lessons learned during the deployment of these new capabilities, and how such lessons can be used to accelerate the benefits of the SWIM program. The Committee directs the FAA to submit this report no later than 60 days after completing the deployment of these new capabilities
Wind Hazard Detection Equipment- The Committee recommendation includes an additional $850,000 for the purchase of a Wind Tracer Wind Hazard Detection equipment and its installation at McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas, Nevada. Wind Tracer is laser-driven technology that measures winds, wind hazards and turbulence in airport terminal areas in dry, clear air. The equipment allows the detection and alerting of events such as dry microbursts, wind shears, gust fronts, and other hazards. The equipment commonly used by the FAA is very good at detecting these events in wet, humid conditions. However, it is less effective in the dry, clear climate of Las Vegas. This funding, in combination with resources provided for this purpose in fiscal year 2008, should be sufficient to ensure the near-term installation of this important safety tool.
Airport Surface Detection Equipment--Model X- The Committee recommendation includes $32,700,000 for the Airport Surface Detection Equipment--Model X [ASDE-X] program, a funding level that is equal to the budget request and $7,900,000 less than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
ASDE-X technology is designed to prevent runway incursions by providing air traffic controllers with more accurate and detailed information about the current situation on airport surfaces. However, the program has significant limitations. First, ASDE-X still relies on air traffic controllers to convey urgent information to the flight crew of an aircraft, rather than providing that information directly to the cockpit. When fractions of a second count, this indirect approach does not provide the maximum safety benefit. Second, ASDE-X uses radars to survey airport surfaces, and heavy precipitation degrades the accuracy of radar surveillance. ASDE-X therefore cannot give alerts with a consistent level of reliability. Because of these limitations, the Committee views the ASDE-X program as a valuable yet incomplete measure for improving runway safety.
Despite all the attention given to ASDE-X, the Committee continues to be disappointed in the FAA's ability to manage the program. The FAA has repeatedly assured the Committee that the ASDE-X program will be completed on time and on budget, but the agency appears disinterested in using generally accepting practices for program management. Two years ago, the Office of the Inspector General [OIG] issued a management advisory recommending that the FAA take immediate action to correct prohibited and improper contract administration practices under the ASDE-X program. However, the FAA waited over a year before taking these corrective actions. In addition, the OIG has repeatedly recommended that the FAA establish `earned value management' mechanisms that would allow the agency to track ASDE-X progress and compare it with program costs. The FAA has not yet established such a mechanism. Seeing that the FAA refuses to use common management practices, the Committee lacks confidence in assurances by the agency that ASDE-X will in fact be delivered on time and on budget.
The Committee is also deeply concerned that the FAA has chosen to ignore recommendations from the OIG, or to implement the recommendations at a very slow pace. The ASDE-X schedule is aggressive, and the agency already has adjusted its current budget to accommodate cost growth of $94,000,000. The OIG has targeted these recommendations to reducing the risk of further cost growth or schedule delays, and the Committee urges the FAA to take them more seriously.
The Committee is particularly disturbed that the FAA has even gone so far as to withhold from the OIG important information relating to the ASDE-X program. OIG repeatedly asked for the ASDE-X master schedule, and the FAA refused to provide this document until the agency was formally served with a citation from the OIG asserting its rights and responsibilities under the Inspector General Act. Furthermore, the OIG has reported that when it asked for important information on the cost of the ASDE-X program, the FAA provided either conflicting information or data that the agency claimed was already out of date.
The FAA's reluctance to work openly with the OIG is simply not acceptable. It raises serious questions about why the FAA would feel it may be better served by withholding information from the OIG than to work with the level of transparency expected from a Government agency.
Terminal Air Traffic Control Facilities--Replace- The Committee recommendation includes $134,545,476 for new and replacement air traffic control tower [ATCT] and ATCT/TRACON consolidation projects, an increase of $250,000 from the budget request. The Committee directs the FAA to allocate the additional funds as presented in the following table:
--------------------------------------------------
Location Amount
--------------------------------------------------
Greenwood Airport Tower Construction, MS $250,000
--------------------------------------------------
Runway Status Lights- The Committee recommends $26,960,000 for runway status lights, an amount equal to the budget request and $17,960,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
Runway status lights are located in the center of a runway or taxiway, and they illuminate red to alert pilots when that area is already in use. These red lights provide clear information directly to an aircraft, improving the situational awareness of its flight crew.
Runway incursions continue to be one of the Committee's most critical safety concerns for commercial aviation. Unfortunately, recent data do not provide a clear picture of improvement. Between fiscal years 2006 and 2007, the number of the most severe runway incursions dropped from 31 to 24 incidents. However, the total number of runway incursions has grown in each of the past four years so that fiscal year 2007 saw the highest number of incursions in recent history as well as the highest rate of incursions per 1 million operations. Data for the current fiscal year to date seem to imply that this total will grow for yet another year.
Runway status lights constitute an important part of the FAA's efforts to reduce runway incursions because they provide instantaneous warnings to the cockpit that vehicles or aircraft are on the runway. The lights supplement the information provided by air traffic controllers rather than require additional communication between the cockpit and the controller. The NTSB includes improving runway safety on its list of `most wanted' safety improvements, and specifically calls on the FAA to `give immediate warnings of probable collisions/incursions directly to flight crews in the cockpit.'
The program to develop and install runway status lights is still at an early stage of its implementation, and the FAA does not expect to begin installation at specific airports until fiscal year 2009. The Committee is pleased that the FAA has accelerated the program so that its final implementation will occur in 2011 instead of 2014. The Committee urges the FAA to uphold the promise of this technology by delivering the program on time and on budget. The importance of holding to this schedule is underlined by the fact that the FAA must coordinate its work on runway status lights with its aggressive schedule for the ASDE-X program.
Finally, the Committee notes that other technologies are available to improve the situational awareness of the flight crew. While supportive of runway status lights, the Committee also expects the FAA to continue investigating all technologies that hold promise for improving runway safety.
Weather Camera Program- The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the Weather Camera Program. This program improves safety and efficiency by providing weather visibility information in the form of near real-time camera images to aviation users in Alaska. These images give pilots important information about conditions at their destination airports and along their routes of flight. The $2,000,000 provided for fiscal year 2009 will pay for the installation of approximately 10 additional camera sites.
Approach Lighting System Improvement Program [ALSIP]- The Committee recommends $12,500,000 for the procurement and installation of frangible approach lighting equipment including high intensity approach lighting system with sequenced flashing lights [ALSF-2] and medium intensity approach lighting system [MALSR]. The amount provided is $2,500,000 more than the budget request. These additional resources shall be used to continue the program of providing lighting systems at rural airfields throughout Alaska.
Instrument Landing System [ILS]--Establish- The Committee recommends $7,750,000 for the establishment of instrument landing systems. This increase shall be allocated as follows:
----------------------------------------------
Location Amount
----------------------------------------------
Reno-Tahoe Airport Authority, Nevada $250,000
----------------------------------------------
Wide Area Augmentation System- The Committee recommends $92,570,000 for the Wide Area Augmentation System [WAAS], which is $6,430,000 less than the budget request and $13,330,000 less than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
WAAS is a satellite-based technology that supplements the Global Positioning System [GPS] in order to improve the accuracy and integrity of GPS information. WAAS technology allows aircraft to rely on GPS to conduct en route operations as well as precision approach operations to qualifying airports.
The FAA budget request includes funding for a wide range of activities, including deploying an additional satellite, developing new procedures for the use of WAAS in precision approaches, and replacing old technology. The Committee recommendation includes funding for almost all of these activities. However, the Committee recommendation does not include the $6,430,000 requested specifically for the FAA to conduct outreach efforts and initiate partnerships with manufacturers and airports.
The Committee strongly believes in the value of outreach and industry partnerships, but the Committee also believes that these activities should be conducted as part of the FAA's regular course of doing business. Every time the Committee provides funding to further develop a capital program, it does so with the expectation that the FAA will work with its partners in the aviation community to ensure that the Federal investments are made in the most effective and judicious manner.
NON-AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT: SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
National Airspace System Training--Simulator- As discussed under the Operations account, the Committee recommendation includes $24,400,000 for NAS training simulators to help the FAA train new air traffic controllers. This funding level is $12,400,000 more than the budget request and $9,800,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
Of the total amount of funding added to the FAA budget request, $4,000,000 will allow the FAA to purchase two High Fidelity Simulation Training systems that reproduce the terminal environment. The Committee expects the FAA to deploy these systems at the two locations identified as priorities by the FAA. The High Fidelity Simulator Training systems use advanced technologies in order to provide a significantly more realistic training experience. The Committee believes that such innovative simulators will improve the quality of training provided to new agency hires. Another $8,400,000 in additional funding will allow the FAA to purchase 12 simulators to train controllers for work in air traffic control towers. The Committee expects that the FAA will also place these simulators at the locations identified as priorities by the agency.
RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT
(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)
| Appropriations, 2008 | $146,828,000 |
| Budget estimate, 2009 | 171,028,000 |
| Committee recommendation | 171,000,000 |
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Research, Engineering and Development [RE&D] appropriation provides funding for long-term research, engineering and development programs to improve the air traffic control system by increasing its safety and capacity, as well as reducing the environmental impacts of air traffic, as authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act and the Federal Aviation Act, as amended. The programs are designed to meet the expected air traffic demands of the future and to promote flight safety through improvements in facilities, equipment, techniques, and procedures in order to ensure that the system will safely and efficiently handle future volumes of aircraft traffic.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $171,000,000 for the FAA's research, engineering, and development activities. The recommended level of funding is $28,000 less than the budget request and $24,172,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
A table showing the fiscal year 2008 enacted level, the fiscal year 2009 budget estimate, and the Committee recommendation follows:
RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year-- Committee recommendation
2008 enacted 2009 estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improve Aviation Safety:
Fire Research and Safety 7,350 6,650 6,650
Propulsion and Fuel System 4,086 3,669 3,669
Advance Material/Structural Safety 7,083 2,920 2,920
Atmospheric Hazards/Digital System Safety 3,574 4,838 4,838
Aging Aircraft 15,946 14,589 14,589
Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research 2,202 436 436
System Integration Human Factors 9,200 7,465 7,465
Analysis 9,517 12,488 12,488
Air Traffic Control/Technical Operations Human Factors 10,000 10,469 10,469
Aeromedical Research 7,760 8,395 8,395
Weather Program 16,888 16,968 16,968
Unmanned Aircraft System 2,920 1,876 1,876
Improve Efficiency:
Joint Program and Development Office 14,321 14,494 14,466
Wake Turbulence 12,813 10,132 10,132
GPSCivil Requirements 3,100
NextGen--Air-Ground Integration 2,554 2,554
NextGen--Self Separation 8,025 8,025
NextGen--Weather Technology 8,049 8,049
Reduce Environmental Impacts:
Environment and Energy 15,469 15,608 15,608
NextGen Environmental Research 16,050 16,050
Mission Support:
System Planning and Resource Management 1,184 1,817 1,817
William J. Hughes Technical Center Laboratory Facility 3,415 3,536 3,536
RE&D Total 146,828 171,028 171,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPROVE AVIATION SAFETY
Advance Material/Structural Safety
Advance Materials in Transport Aircraft Structures [AMTAS]- The Committee recommends $500,000 for research and development of composites materials in transport aircraft structures at the Advance Materials in Transport Aircraft Structures Center in Seattle, Washington.
Center for Runway Safety Systems- The Committee recommends $750,000 for the Center for Runway Safety Systems at Kansas State University in Manhattan, Kansas to provide for examination and feasibility of runway safety systems by offering technical engineering and design input, including economic and life-cycle-cost analyses.
National Institute for Aviation Research- The Committee recommends $2,500,000 for the National Institute for Aviation Research at Wichita State University in Wichita, Kansas, to purchase new equipment, hire technical personnel, and conduct research at the Advanced Materials Research Program.
Center of Excellence RITE.--The Committee encourages the retention of RITE as an F&E activity under Aerospace Medicine for the identification, evaluation, and potential application of sensor, purification and decontamination technologies for airliner cabin environments. The Committee notes the utility of innovative research beyond the airliner cabin and directs the FAA to provide a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than 90 days after passage of this act with recommendations on the potential applications of research across modes of transportation and other Federal and State applications.
IMPROVE EFFICIENCY
Joint Program and Development Office [JPDO]
The Committee recommends $14,466,000 for the Joint Program and Development Office, a decrease of $28,000 from the budget request and $145,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. The budget request provides no detail on how the JPDO would use the requested lump-sum to accomplish its stated goals for fiscal year 2009. The Committee directs the FAA to provide greater detail on the programming of its RE&D budget request for the JPDO in its fiscal year 2010 budget. The Committee further directs the FAA to provide a list of the technical assistance contracts for which JPDO RE&D funds will be used in fiscal year 2009 to the Committee within 90 days of passage of this appropriations act.
GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidation of contract authorization Limitation on obligations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation, 2008 $4,399,000,000 3,514,500,000
Budget estimate, 2009 3,600,000,000 2,750,000,000
Committee recommendation 3,600,000,000 3,515,000,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Funding for grants-in-aid to airports pays for capital improvements at the Nation's airports, including those investments that emphasize capacity development, safety improvements, and security needs. Other priority areas for funding under this program include improvements to runway safety areas that do not conform to FAA standards, investments that are designed to reduce runway incursions, and aircraft noise compatibility planning and programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of $3,515,000,000 for grants-in-aid to airports for fiscal year 2009, which is $765,000,000 more than the budget estimate and $500,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. The Committee recommendation is sufficient to continue the important tasks of enhancing airport and airway safety, ensuring that airport standards continue to be met, maintaining existing airport capacity, and developing additional capacity.
In addition, the Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation of $3,600,000,000 for grants-in-aid to airports. The recommended level is equal to above the budget estimate and $165,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. This appropriation is sufficient to cover the liquidation of all obligations incurred pursuant to the limitation on obligations set forward in the bill.
Airport Discretionary Grants- Of the funds covered by the obligation limitation in this bill, the Committee directs FAA to provide funding, out of available resources, for those projects listed in the table below in the corresponding amounts. The Committee agrees that State apportionment funds may be construed as discretionary funds for the purposes of implementing this provision. To the maximum extent possible, the Administrator should work to ensure that airport sponsors for these projects first use available entitlement funds to finance the projects. However, the FAA should not require sponsors to apply carryover entitlement to discretionary projects funded in the coming year, but only those entitlements applicable to the fiscal year 2008 obligation limitation. The Committee further directs that the specific funding allocated in the table below shall not diminish or prejudice the application of a specific airport or geographic region to receive other AIP discretionary grants or multi-year letters of intent.
AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Airport name Project purpose Committee recommendation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK Akutan For airport construction of a new parallel runway $1,250,000
MI Battle Creek Unlimited For construction of a new parallel runway 2,000,000
VT Burlington International To reconstruct the taxiway 1,000,000
WI Chippewa Valley Regional For second phase of the Terminal development 1,000,000
MO Clinton Memorial Runway 18/36 construction 500,000
IL Dekalb Taylor Municipal To acquire land for expansion 300,000
MS Golden Triangle Regional Extension of runways and taxiways 1,500,000
MS Gulfport-Biloxi International Taxiway and runway construction and rehabilitation 2,000,000
MS Jackson-Evers International Airfield infrastructure rehabilitation and replacements 1,500,000
MI Kalamazoo/Battle Creek International For construction of new terminal building 1,700,000
KY Louisville International-Standiford Field To improve runway safety areas 1,000,000
AL Mobile Regional Rehabilitation of Runway 18/36 and Taxiway `R' 2,000,000
NH Mt. Washington Regional To install an instrument landing system 1,000,000
TN Nashville International Reconstruction of Runway 2L-20R 750,000
IL Peoria Regional To construct a new terminal facility at Peoria Regional 1,000,000
PA Philadelphia International For runway rehabilitation 2,500,000
NC Piedmont Triad International Procurement and installation of an instrument landing system 1,000,000
NC Rowan County For land acquisition in the existing Runway Protection Zone 2,000,000
TX San Marcos Municipal For various improvements 2,000,000
ND Sloulin Field International Rehabilitation and extension of runway 2,000,000
ND Grand Forks International For construction of a terminal 300,000
MO Springfield-Branson National For the design, construction and rehabilitation of various runways and taxiways 2,750,000
MS Tunica Municipal Airfield infrastructure rehabilitation and replacements 750,000
WV West Virginia Statewide Various improvements 4,500,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative Expenses- The Committee recommends $87,454,000 to cover administrative expenses. This funding level is $1,000,232 less than the budget estimate, and $6,778,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
Airport Cooperative Research- The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for the airport cooperative research program. This funding level is equal to the budget estimate, and $5,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
Airport Technology- The Committee recommends $19,348,000 for airport technology research. This funding level is the same as the budget request, and $636,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 level.
Small Community Air Service Development Program [SCASDP]- Following reports from the Office of the Inspector General that show the SCASDP program provides limited results in improving air service to small communities, the Committee recommends no funding for the program in fiscal year 2009, consistent with the budget request.
GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS
(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)
(RESCISSION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
| Rescission, 2008 | -$270,500,000 |
| Budget estimate, 2009 | ........................... |
| Committee recommendation | -75,000,000 |
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a rescission of contract authorization of $75,000,000 of unobligated balances of contract authority.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Section 110 limits the number of technical staff years at the Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development to no more than 425 in fiscal year 2009.
Section 111 prohibits funds in this act to be used to adopt guidelines or regulations requiring airport sponsors to provide the FAA `without cost' buildings, maintenance, or space for FAA services. The prohibition does not apply to negotiations between the FAA and airport sponsors concerning `below market' rates for such services or to grant assurances that require airport sponsors to provide land without cost to the FAA for air traffic control facilities.
Section 112 permits the Administrator to reimburse FAA appropriations for amounts made available for 49 U.S.C. 41742(a)(1) as fees are collected and credited under 49 U.S.C. 45303.
Section 113 allows funds received to reimburse the FAA for providing technical assistance to foreign aviation authorities to be credited to the `Operations' account.
Section 114 extends the terms and conditions of the aviation insurance program, commonly known as `war risk insurance,' and the limitation on air carrier liability for third-party claims arising out of acts of terrorism.
Section 115 prohibits funds in this act to be used for buying a store gift card certificate with a Government-issued credit card.
Section 116 prohibits the funds in this act to be used for promulgating regulations that allow the Secretary of Transportation to auction air slots, impose congestion pricing at an airport, exact an air slot from a carrier, charge a fee for the right to use a specified portion of airspace, or establish policies that would encourage an airport to undertake such actions.
Section 117 prohibits funds limited in this act for the Airport Improvement Program to be provided to an airport that refuses a request from the Secretary of Transportation to use public space at the airport for the purpose of conducting outreach on air passenger rights.
Section 118 requires the FAA Administrator to respond to the Committees on Appropriations and Commerce, Science and Transportation in writing within 60 days of the publication of any Government Accountability Office report on airspace redesign over the New York, New Jersey and Philadelphia region on the actions the agency intends to take in order to address any concerns or recommendations contained in the GAO report.
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The principal mission of the Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] is, in partnership with State and local governments, to foster the development of a safe, efficient, and effective highway and intermodal system nationwide including access to and within national forests, national parks, indian lands and other public lands.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
Under the Committee recommendations, a total program level of $41,209,970,128 would be provided for the activities of the Federal Highway Administration in fiscal year 2009. The recommendation is $1,811,241,952 more than the budget request, and $230,745,359 less than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. The following table summarizes the Committee's recommendations (excluding rescissions):
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year-- Committee recommendation
2008 enacted 2009 estimate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-aid highway program obligation limitation $40,216,051,359 $39,398,728,226 $41,199,970,178
Additional bridge obligation limitation 1,000,000,000
Emergency relief program (Public Law 110-28) 195,000,000
Appalachian development highway system 15,680,000 10,000,000
Delta regional transportation development 14,014,000
Denali access system program 6,000,000
Total 41,440,745,359 39,398,728,226 41,215,970,178
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
| Appropriations, 2008 | $377,556,000 |
| Budget estimate, 2009 | 394,880,000 |
| Committee recommendation | 390,000,000 |
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This limitation on obligations provides for the salaries and expenses of the Federal Highway Administration for program management, direction, and coordination; engineering guidance to Federal and State agencies; and advisory and support services in field offices.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of $390,000,000 for administrative expenses of the agency. This limitation is $4,880,000 less than the budget request and $12,444,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. The bill includes language to make $3,824,000 of the limitation on administrative expenses available to the Office of Inspector General to conduct audits and investigations related to the FHWA.
FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS
(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
| Limitation, 2008 | $41,216,051,359 |
| Budget estimate, 2009 | 39,398,728,226 |
| Committee recommendation | 41,199,970,178 |
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Federal-aid highways program provides financial support to States and localities for development, construction, and repair of highways and bridges through grants. The program is financed from the Highway Trust Fund and most of the funds are distributed through apportionments and allocations to States. Title 23 of the United States Code and other supporting legislation provide authority for the various activities of the FHWA. Funding is provided by contract authority, with program levels established by annual limitations on obligations set in appropriations acts.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends limiting fiscal year 2009 Federal-aid highways obligations to $41,199,970,178, which is $1,801,241,952 more than the budget request, and $983,918,819 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level for the regular Federal-Aid Highway program.
Within the overall limitation on fiscal year 2008 Federal-aid highway obligations, the Committee recommends limiting fiscal year 2008 obligations on transportation research to $429,800,000. The recommendation is equal to the budget request, and it is consistent with the authorized level. This specific limitation controls spending for the transportation research and technology programs of the FHWA, and it includes the intelligent transportation systems; surface transportation research; technology deployment, training and education; university transportation research; and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
In addition, the bill includes a provision that allows the FHWA to collect and spend fees in order to pay for the services of expert firms in the field of municipal and project finance to assist the agency in the provision of TIFIA credit instruments.
The Committee has been disappointed by the tepid leadership provided by the administration in finding a solution for the Highway Trust Fund. After more than a year of raising the alarm about the trust fund without bringing forth any concrete solutions, the Department requested special authority to bolster the balances of the highway account by transferring balances from the transit account. The Department offered assurances that those balances would be repaid to the transit account, but provided no detail on how or when it would make this repayment. In fact, according to analysis provided by the Congressional Budget Office, the budget request submitted by the administration would never allow balances to accumulate in the highway account so that the transit account could be repaid.
The Committee's concern over the Highway Trust Fund also extends to the transit account. The Committee notes that the transit account is also expected to face a solvency crisis of its own by fiscal year 2011. The Committee does not believe that the proper way to address the pending bankruptcy of the highway account is to hasten the bankruptcy of the transit account.
The Committee was pleased to receive written commitments last year from the bipartisan leadership of the Senate Finance Committee, stating that they are `dedicated to finding the necessary revenues to keep the Highway Trust Fund whole for the life of the current authorization.' The Committee has been working with the Senate Finance Committee in order to bring solvency to the Highway Trust Fund. The Committee supported the Finance Committee last year when it reported a bill that would strengthen the trust fund, and again this year when the Finance Committee tried to bring important legislation to the floor that included a provision addressing the balances of the trust fund. Unfortunately, despite broad bipartisan support for such legislation, objections lodged by individual senators have kept it from being enacted.
The Committee is now in the position of recommending funding levels for the highway program without any assurances that sufficient trust fund balances will be available to support the program even at the funding level enacted for fiscal year 2008. Absent any other action by Congress that would replenish the balances of the Highway Trust Fund, this Committee would be required to cut Federal investments in highway infrastructure by more than one-third. The table below shows the minimum impact that such a cut would have on each state's formula grants:
FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM OBLIGATION LIMITATION
[Fiscal year 2008 and potential fiscal year 2009, assuming no balances are provided for the Highway Trust Fund]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2008 Potential fiscal year 2009 Difference
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formula Programs
Alabama $637,171,053 $454,824,733 -$182,346,320
Alaska 279,027,009 213,461,360 -65,565,649
Arizona 641,147,302 423,184,887 -217,962,415
Arkansas 396,231,100 286,719,068 -109,512,032
California 2,927,693,941 2,162,914,748 -764,779,193
Colorado 431,647,397 305,442,339 -126,205,058
Connecticut 414,852,828 298,155,051 -116,697,777
Delaware 125,349,454 89,408,810 -35,940,644
District of Columbia 124,219,541 89,055,744 -35,163,797
Florida 1,624,418,469 1,102,615,868 -521,802,601
Georgia 1,175,544,083 808,957,462 -366,586,621
Hawaii 132,787,891 92,455,082 -40,332,809
Idaho 236,216,077 168,827,927 -67,388,150
Illinois 1,088,534,841 783,330,484 -305,204,357
Indiana 824,465,351 581,195,810 -243,269,541
Iowa 361,451,625 242,857,239 -118,594,386
Kansas 320,774,514 223,029,846 -97,744,668
Kentucky 549,734,543 388,477,945 -161,256,598
Louisiana 485,325,905 351,623,950 -133,701,955
Maine 138,294,977 101,473,221 -36,821,756
Maryland 503,509,566 351,819,107 -151,690,459
Massachusetts 521,001,880 365,897,655 -155,104,225
Michigan 926,049,768 722,171,474 -203,878,294
Minnesota 509,180,201 391,306,319 -117,873,882
Mississippi 373,242,956 267,581,968 -105,660,988
Missouri 736,160,886 530,486,038 -205,674,848
Montana 304,771,339 218,174,703 -86,596,636
Nebraska 236,117,358 163,744,876 -72,372,482
Nevada 232,589,219 145,744,407 -86,844,812
New Hampshire 143,146,635 100,205,953 -42,940,682
New Jersey 831,717,217 582,846,004 -248,871,213
New Mexico 299,500,553 217,029,410 -82,471,143
New York 1,420,182,342 990,367,322 -429,815,020
North Carolina 901,203,928 651,798,430 -249,405,498
North Dakota 200,065,774 139,213,152 -60,852,622
Ohio 1,133,310,969 840,803,111 -292,507,858
Oklahoma 487,380,217 342,367,319 -145,012,898
Oregon 359,329,292 255,186,729 -104,142,563
Pennsylvania 1,412,027,836 992,854,989 -419,172,847
Rhode Island 153,907,813 109,296,597 -44,611,216
South Carolina 521,548,415 362,727,197 -158,821,218
South Dakota 209,747,233 151,170,837 -58,576,396
Tennessee 693,574,094 488,908,923 -204,665,171
Texas 2,644,630,565 1,855,034,583 -789,595,982
Utah 231,513,161 160,420,055 -71,093,106
Vermont 129,246,803 96,554,996 -32,691,807
Virginia 836,304,372 600,370,965 -235,933,407
Washington 537,843,953 380,729,769 -157,114,184
West Virginia 341,068,291 244,799,450 -96,268,841
Wisconsin 620,444,962 444,299,449 -176,145,513
Wyoming 208,139,995 153,148,013 -54,991,982
SUBTOTAL 31,573,345,494 22,485,071,374 -9,088,274,120
Non-Formula Programs 8,642,705,865 4,714,928,626 -3,927,777,239
TOTAL 40,216,051,359 27,200,000,000 -13,016,051,359
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee believes that such a severe reduction to the highway program would impose unreasonable hardships on state budgets and the national economy, and it would threaten the safety of our transportation infrastructure.
Because the Committee is unwilling to put the Federal highway program at risk, the bill includes a provision that would transfer $8,017,355,427 in balances to the Highway Trust Fund. This transfer corresponds to the amount of balances that were taken out of the Highway Trust Fund after fiscal year 1998, a time when the pervading wisdom was that the Highway Trust Fund had `too many' balances and would not be able to spend them all.
The Committee also recommends providing an obligation limitation of $41,199,970,178, the amount authorized by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users [SAFETEA-LU], the authorization law for most surface transportation programs. This authorized level does not include a cut of $1,001,241,952 called for by the Revenue-Aligned Budget Authority [RABA] program. The Committee recommends a funding level that is almost equal to the level enacted for fiscal year 2008 in order to provide the highway program with a measure of stability. The following table shows the obligation limitation provided to each state under the Committee's recommended funding level.
FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM OBLIGATION LIMITATION
[Fiscal year 2008 and Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2009]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2008 Committee recommendation Difference
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formula Programs
Alabama $637,171,053 $685,543,016 +$48,371,963
Alaska 279,027,009 311,702,583 +32,675,574
Arizona 641,147,302 636,778,016 -4,369,286
Arkansas 396,231,100 435,575,249 +39,344,149
California 2,927,693,941 3,312,604,354 +384,910,413
Colorado 431,647,397 467,299,869 +35,652,472
Connecticut 414,852,828 449,954,744 +35,101,916
Delaware 125,349,454 138,617,001 +13,267,547
District of Columbia 124,219,541 140,334,120 +16,114,579
Florida 1,624,418,469 1,642,927,339 +18,508,870
Georgia 1,175,544,083 1,211,169,696 +35,625,613
Hawaii 132,787,891 143,485,622 +10,697,731
Idaho 236,216,077 254,021,410 +17,805,333
Illinois 1,088,534,841 1,196,535,129 +108,000,288
Indiana 824,465,351 871,478,385 +47,013,034
Iowa 361,451,625 379,857,928 +18,406,303
Kansas 320,774,514 351,450,628 +30,676,114
Kentucky 549,734,543 592,705,890 +42,971,347
Louisiana 485,325,905 538,515,237 +53,189,332
Maine 138,294,977 159,901,591 +21,606,614
Maryland 503,509,566 540,404,755 +36,895,189
Massachusetts 521,001,880 568,853,014 +47,851,134
Michigan 926,049,768 1,102,209,396 +176,159,628
Minnesota 509,180,201 595,968,817 +86,788,616
Mississippi 373,242,956 410,678,473 +37,435,517
Missouri 736,160,886 811,424,802 +75,263,916
Montana 304,771,339 328,045,710 +23,274,371
Nebraska 236,117,358 255,952,457 +19,835,099
Nevada 232,589,219 223,557,604 -9,031,615
New Hampshire 143,146,635 154,484,581 +11,337,946
New Jersey 831,717,217 890,273,196 +58,555,979
New Mexico 299,500,553 330,088,742 +30,588,189
New York 1,420,182,342 1,534,810,766 +114,628,424
North Carolina 901,203,928 983,778,573 +82,574,645
North Dakota 200,065,774 216,353,829 +16,288,055
Ohio 1,133,310,969 1,274,601,049 +141,290,080
Oklahoma 487,380,217 529,123,770 +41,743,553
Oregon 359,329,292 396,291,640 +36,962,348
Pennsylvania 1,412,027,836 1,522,347,095 +110,319,259
Rhode Island 153,907,813 172,229,673 +18,321,860
South Carolina 521,548,415 549,574,486 +28,026,071
South Dakota 209,747,233 231,625,159 +21,877,926
Tennessee 693,574,094 742,319,544 +48,745,450
Texas 2,644,630,565 2,796,338,555 +151,707,990
Utah 231,513,161 247,484,654 +15,971,493
Vermont 129,246,803 152,151,448 +22,904,645
Virginia 836,304,372 909,749,363 +73,444,991
Washington 537,843,953 595,434,008 +57,590,055
West Virginia 341,068,291 373,289,308 +32,221,017
Wisconsin 620,444,962 668,178,206 +47,733,244
Wyoming 208,139,995 236,277,139 +28,137,144
SUBTOTAL 31,573,345,494 34,264,357,619 +2,691,012,125
Non-Formula Programs 8,642,705,865 6,935,612,559 -1,707,093,306
TOTAL 40,216,051,359 41,199,970,178 +983,918,819
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bridges- The Committee remains concerned about the safety of our Nation's bridges. Last year, following the tragic collapse of the Interstate 35W bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota, the Committee provided an additional $1,000,000,000 for bridge replacement and repair, and directed that this funding supplement and not supplant current State plans for such activities. FHWA issued guidance on applying for this funding in April, and the agency has already begun to provide grants and work with States on their applications.
The Committee's concern over bridge infrastructure also extends to the ability of the FHWA to effectively oversee bridge safety. The OIG has recommended that FHWA use a more risk-based, data-driven approach to its bridge oversight, and the FHWA has taken a number of steps to address holes in its oversight process. The agency established a working group to evaluate alternatives, required its division offices to conduct in-depth reviews of bridge load rating and posting practices, and started to modify the Bridge Program Manual to provide better guidance to the division offices. However, the Committee notes that the bridge manual has already been under review for a full year. While some of these issues may be complex in nature or require a rulemaking process before going forward, the Committee urges the FHWA to move forward with this process expeditiously. The Committee believes that the FHWA must place a high priority on completing its initiatives.
The Committee will continue to monitor the progress that FHWA makes in identifying new approaches to bridge oversight, completing its initiatives, and achieving results from its efforts. The Committee also directs the FHWA provide semiannual updates to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the agency's progress toward improving its oversight of bridge safety.
FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS PROGRAMS
The roads and bridges that make up our Nation's highway infrastructure are built, operated, and maintained through the joint efforts of Federal, State, and local governments. States have much flexibility to use Federal-aid highway funds to best meet their individual needs and priorities, with FHWA's assistance and oversight.
The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users [SAFETEA-LU], the highway, highway safety, and transit authorization through fiscal year 2009, makes Federal-aid highways funds available in various categories of spending.
The following table reflects an estimated distribution of obligations among the largest of the Federal-aid highway program categories, and the table is followed by a more detailed discussion of many of the categories of Federal-aid highway spending: (The obligation limitation recommended by the Committee is applicable to most of these program categories, but the resources for certain categories of spending are exempt from the limitation).
ESTIMATED OBLIGATIONS AMONG MAJOR CATEGORIES OF FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY SPENDING SUBJECT TO OBLIGATION LIMITATION
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2008 enacted Fiscal year 2009 budget request Fiscal year 2009 Committee recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-Aid Highway Category Subject to Obligation Limitation:
Transportation infrastructure finance and innovation 254 122 122
Surface transportation program 7,712 7,624 8,002
National highway system 7,323 7,237 7,598
Interstate maintenance 5,996 5,926 6,219
Bridge replacement and rehabilitation 5,624 5,063 5,317
Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement 2,090 2,067 2,171
Highway safety improvement 1,278 1,262 1,325
Equity Bonus 2,421 2,413 2,533
Federal lands highways 1,059 985 1,019
Appalachian development highway system 417 424 446
High priority projects 1,860 2,546 2,544
Projects of national and regional significance 205 252 263
Research, development, and technology 391 396 415
Administration 378 395 390
Other categories of spending 3,942 2,630 2,778
Total 40,950 39,342 41,142
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Highway System [NHS].--The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA] of 1991 authorized the NHS, which was subsequently established as a 161,000 mile road system by the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995. This system serves major population centers, intermodal transportation facilities, international border crossings, and major destinations. The NHS program provides funding for this system consisting of roads that are of primary Federal interest. The NHS consists of the current Interstate, other rural principal arterials, urban freeways and connecting urban principal arterials, and facilities on the Defense Department's designated Strategic Highway Network, and roads connecting the NHS to intermodal facilities. The Federal share for the NHS program is generally 80 percent, subject to the sliding scale adjustment, with an availability period of 4 years.
Interstate Maintenance [IM].--The 46,876-mile Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways retains a separate identity within the NHS. The IM program finances projects to rehabilitate, restore, resurface and reconstruct the Interstate system. Reconstruction that increases capacity, other than HOV lanes, is not eligible for IM funds. The Federal share for the IM program is 90 percent, subject to the sliding scale adjustment, and funds are available for 4 years.
Within the funding available to the interstate maintenance discretionary program, funds are to be made available to the following projects and activities:
INTERSTATE MAINTENANCE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project name Committeerecommendation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Columbia River Crossing, OR $3,000,000
H-1 Kinau Off Ramp, HI 5,000,000
I-10 Connector Project, Dothan, AL 1,000,000
I-10 Interchange at Pecue Lane, LA 500,000
I-10 Reconstruction from Las Cruces to milepost 165, NM 2,000,000
I-12 Sound Walls, LA 500,000
I-225 and Colfax/17th Place Interchange, CO 1,000,000
I-25 Reconstruction Glenrock to Casper Hat Six Section, WY 2,000,000
I-25 North from SH 56 to US 34, CO 2,000,000
I-35W Improvement Project, TX 1,000,000
I-35W North Congestion Mitigation & Design, MN 1,000,000
I-44 Pavement Improvements from Glenstone Avenue to Kansas Expressway, Greene County, MO 1,000,000
I-44 Pavement Improvements from US-65 to Glenstone Avenue, MO 1,000,000
I-70 Stapleton Interchange, CO 2,000,000
I-70 Viaduct Relignment, Topeka, KS 1,000,000
I-84 Caldwell to Nampa Widening, ID 1,000,000
I-85 NB Viaduct at SR 400 NB--Exit Lane, GA 500,000
I-85 Widening, NC 1,000,000
I-94/9th Street Interchange, ND 1,000,000
I-95/US 301 Interchange Improvement Project, SC 1,000,000
I-95 Pawtucket River Bridge Replacement, RI 2,000,000
I-95 Toll Facility Rehabilitation and Highway Speed E-ZPass Improvements, DE 2,000,000
I-95/Fairfax County Parkway Interchange at Newington Road, VA 2,000,000
Improvements on I-90 from the Lawrence County Line to Exit 32, SD 2,000,000
Interstate 29 Utility Reconstruction, IA 1,000,000
Interstate 430/630: Interchange Modification, AR 2,000,000
Lincoln Parish/I-20 Transportation Corridor, LA 500,000
Third Army Road/Interstate 75 Interchange Construction, GA 750,000
Turnpike Improvement Project: SR1 and I-95, DE 2,000,000
US 17 in Onslow County, NC 1,000,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Transportation Program [STP].--STP is a flexible program that may be used by States and localities for projects on any Federal-aid highway, bridge projects on any public road, transit capital projects, and intracity and intercity bus terminals and facilities. A portion of STP funds are set aside for transportation enhancements and State suballocations are provided. The Federal share for STP is generally 80 percent, subject to the sliding scale adjustment, with a 4-year availability period.
Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation.--The bridge program enables States to improve the condition of their bridges through replacement, rehabilitation, and systematic preventive maintenance. The funds are available for use on all bridges, including those on roads functionally classified as rural minor collectors and as local. Bridge program funds have a 4-year period of availability with a Federal share for all projects, except those on the Interstate System, of 80 percent, subject to the sliding scale adjustment. For those bridges on the Interstate System, the Federal share is 90 percent, subject to the sliding scale adjustment.
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program [CMAQ].--The CMAQ program directs funds toward transportation projects and programs to help meet and maintain national ambient air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter. A minimum one-half percent of the apportionment is guaranteed to each State.
Highway Safety Improvement Program [HSIP].--The highway infrastructure safety program features strategic safety planning and performance. The program also devotes additional resources and supports innovative approaches to reducing highway fatalities and injuries on all public roads.
Federal Lands Highways.--This category funds improvements for forest highways; park roads and parkways; Indian reservation roads; and refuge roads. The Federal lands highway program provides for transportation planning, research, engineering, and construction of highways, roads, parkways, and transit facilities that provide access to or within public lands, national parks, and Indian reservations.
Within the funding available for the Federal lands highway program, funds are to be made available to the following projects and activities:
FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAYS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project name Committeerecommendation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17-Mile Road Reconstruction, Wind River Indian Reservation, WY $500,000
Alaska Trails Initiative, AK 2,000,000
BRAC-related Improvements in Anne Arundel County, MD 3,000,000
BRAC-related Improvements in Harford County, MD 3,000,000
BRAC-related Improvements in Montgomery County, MD 3,000,000
B-Reactor Access Road Analysis Project, WA 200,000
Cannonball and Fort Yates Streets, ND 1,350,000
City of Rocks Back Country Byway, ID 1,000,000
Cuny Table Road (BIA Route 2), Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, SD 1,000,000
Federal Lands Improvement Project, HI 1,000,000
FH-24, Banks to Lowman, ID 500,000
Flight 93 National Memorial, PA 3,000,000
Grand Teton National Park Pathways System, WY 2,000,000
Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge, AZ 4,500,000
Improvements to SD 73 from US 18 to Jackson County Serving Pine Ridge and Rosebud Reservation, SD 1,000,000
Montana Secondary 323 from Ekalaka to Alzada, MT 3,000,000
Powers Boulevard at Peterson AFB, CO 2,000,000
Pyramid Lake Highway Corridor, Sparks, NV 500,000
Sand Dunes Northern Access Road, CO 500,000
Skokomish Tribe Reservation Road Improvements, WA 1,000,000
Southern Nevada Beltway Interchanges, NV 3,000,000
Squaxin Island Access Improvement Project, WA 1,000,000
SR-160 Blue Diamond Highway--Las Vegas to Pahrump, NV 2,750,000
US 491: Navajo 9 to Shiprock, Four-lane upgrade, NM 1,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equity Bonus.--The equity bonus program provides additional funds to States to ensure that each State's total funding from apportioned programs and for High Priority Projects meets certain equity considerations. Each State is guaranteed a minimum rate of return on its share of contributions to the highway account of the Highway Trust Fund, and a minimum increase relative to the average dollar amount of apportionments under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, or TEA-21. Certain States will maintain the share of total apportionments they each received during TEA-21. An open-ended authorization is provided, ensuring that there will be sufficient funds to meet the objectives of the equity bonus. Of the total amount of funds provided for this program, each year $639,000,000 is exempt from the obligation limitation recommended by the Committee.
Emergency Relief [ER].--Section 125 of title 23, United States Code, provides $100,000,0000 annually for the ER program. This funding is not subject to the obligation limitation recommended by the Committee. This program provides funds for the repair or reconstruction of Federal-aid highways and bridges and federally owned roads and bridges that have suffered serious damage as the result of natural disasters or catastrophic failures. The ER program supplements the commitment of resources by States, their political subdivisions, or Federal agencies to help pay for unusually heavy expenses resulting from extraordinary conditions.
Highways for Life- This program provides funding to demonstrate and promote state-of-the-art technologies, elevated performance standards, and new business practices in the highway construction process that result in improved safety, faster construction, reduced congestion from construction, and improved quality and user satisfaction by inviting innovation, new technologies, and new practices to be used in highway construction and operations.
Ferry Boats and Ferry Terminal Facilities.--This program provides funding for the construction of ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities.
Within the funding available to the ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities program, funds are to be made available to the following projects and activities:
FERRY BOATS AND FERRY TERMINAL FACILITIES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project name Committeerecommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Gustavus Public Dock and Floats, AK $1,000,000
Ferry Service for Route 240 Bridge Improvements, MO 1,000,000
Long Island Ferry Dock Construction, Boston, MA 1,000,000
Mayport Ferry Rehabilitation, FL 500,000
North Carolina Statewide Ferry System, NC 2,000,000
Rich Passage Wake Impact Study, WA 2,000,000
Vashon Island Passenger Ferry, WA 1,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Scenic Byways.--This program provides funding for roads that are designated by the Secretary of Transportation as All American Roads [AAR] or National Scenic Byways [NSB]. These roads have outstanding scenic, historic, cultural, natural, recreational, and archaeological qualities.
Transportation and Community and System Preservation [TCSP].--The TCSP program provides grants to States and local governments for planning, developing, and implementing strategies to integrate transportation and community and system preservation plans and practices. These grants may be used to improve the efficiency of the transportation system; reduce the impacts of transportation on the environment; reduce the need for costly future investments in public infrastructure; and provide efficient access to jobs, services, and centers of trade.
Within the funding available to the transportation and community and system preservation program, funds are to be made available to the following projects and activities:
TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNITY AND SYSTEM PRESERVATION PROGRAM
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project name Committeerecommendation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A-B Street Corridor Connector Project, WA 2,000,000
Avenue of the Arts Revitalization and Streetscaping Project, PA 500,000
Boone County Gunpowder Creek Trail System, KY 450,000
Capitol Street Renaissance Project, MS 3,000,000
Children's Wharf Landing Intermodal Improvements, Boston, MA 1,000,000
City of Ashland Main Street Redevelopment Project, MO 500,000
City of Haverhill Downtown Streetscape Improvements, MA 300,000
City of Negaunee, Croix Street Reconstruction; Completion of Phase I: Negaunee, MI 500,000
College Avenue Redesign, NJ 1,000,000
Downtown Revitalization: Phase II of Main Street Revitalization, Las Cruces, NM 500,000
East Aztec Arterial Route, NM 500,000
Elkins Railyard Project, WV 1,000,000
Garrison Avenue Streetscaping, AR 1,000,000
Hattiesburgh 4th Street Improvements, MS 2,000,000
I-80 Intermodal Corridor Study--Oakland, CA to Utah Stateline, UT 1,000,000
Illinois pedestrian and bicycling road and trail improvements and enhancements, IL 3,000,000
Kanawha Trestle Rail-Trail Project, WV 2,000,000
Lewis and Clark Legacy Trail, ND 343,750
Main Street Multimodal Access and Revitalization Project, NY 1,000,000
Mexico Technology Park, MO 1,000,000
North Parkway Safety Improvement Project, WA 500,000
Old Allentown Streetscape Improvements, PA 500,000
Potomac Street Improvement, WV 1,500,000
Sidewalk Improvements, Williamstown, VT 200,000
University Place Pedestrian Overpass, WA 500,000
Woodland Trail Project, WA 500,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois Pedestrian and Bicycling Road and Trail Improvements and Enhancements, Illinois- The Committee recommends $3,000,000 for the Illinois Department of Transportation [IDOT] for various transportation enhancement projects throughout the State. The Committee expects IDOT to provide funds for projects in the following counties: Adams County, Cook County, DuPage County, Macoupin County, Massac County, Montgomery County, Sangamon County, St. Clair County, and Will County.
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation [TIFIA].--The TIFIA credit program provides funds to assist in the development of major infrastructure facilities through greater non-Federal and private sector participation, building on public willingness to dedicate future revenues or user fees in order to receive transportation benefits earlier than would be possible under traditional funding techniques. The TIFIA program provides secured loans, loan guarantees, and standby lines of credit that may be drawn upon to supplement project revenues, if needed, during the first 10 years of project operations.
As required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, this account records, for this program, the subsidy costs associated with the direct loans, loan guarantees, and lines of credit obligated in 1992 and beyond (including modifications of direct loans or loan guarantees that resulted from obligations or commitments in any year), as well as administrative expenses of this program. The subsidy amounts are estimated on present value basis; the administrative expenses are estimated on a cash basis.
Appalachian Development Highway System.--This program makes funds available to construct highways and access roads under section 201 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965. Under SAFETEA-LU, funding is authorized for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2009, is available until expended, and is distributed among the 13 eligible States based on the latest available cost-to-complete estimate prepared by the Appalachian Regional Commission.
High Priority Projects.--Funds are provided for specific projects identified in SAFETEA-LU. Over 5,000 projects are identified, each with a specified amount of funding over the 5 years of SAFETEA-LU.
Projects of National and Regional Significance.--This program provides funding for specific projects of national or regional importance listed in SAFETEA-LU.
Delta Region Transportation Development Program- This program encourages multistate transportation planning and supports the development of transportation infrastructure in the eight States that comprise the region of the Mississippi Delta: Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee.
Within the funding available to the Delta Region Transportation Development Program, funds are to be made available to the following projects and activities:
DELTA REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Project name Committeerecommendation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Byram-Clinton/Norrell Corridor, MS $1,500,000
Downtown Greenwood Connector Route, MS 1,500,000
Natchez Riverfront Trails, MS 450,000
Poplar Bluff Bypass, MO 2,000,000
Route 60, MO 1,000,000
Route 61, MO 639,550
Route 84--Interstate 55, MO 1,000,000
Statesman Boulevard and Trail, MS 1,000,000
Stoddard County, to make road improvements, MO 360,440
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Railway-Highway Crossing Hazard Elimination in High Speed Rail Corridors- This program provides grants for safety improvements at grade crossings between railways and highways on designated high speed rail corridors.
Within the funding available for this program, funds are to be made available to the following projects and activities:
ELIMINATION OF RAIL-HIGHWAY GRADE CROSSING HAZARDS IN HIGH-SPEED RAIL CORRIDORS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project name Committee recommendation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alameda Corridor East Grade Separations, CA $1,000,000
Lincoln Avenue Grade Separation, Port of Tacoma, WA 1,000,000
Shaw Road Extension Project, City of Puyallup, WA 2,000,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
| Appropriations, 2008 | $41,955,051,359 |
| Budget estimate, 2009 | 39,500,000,000 |
| Committee recommendation | 40,000,000,000 |
The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation of $40,000,000,000. The recommended level is $500,000,000 more than the budget request and is necessary to pay outstanding obligations from various highway accounts pursuant to this and prior appropriations acts.
FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS
(RESCISSION)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
The bill rescinds $3,150,000,000 of the unobligated balances of funds apportioned to the States under chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, excluding safety programs and funds set aside within the State for population areas. The bill includes a provision that provides States with flexibility in how this rescission is applied, consistent with the policy the Committee followed in prior years.
APPALACHIAN DEVELOPMENT HIGHWAY SYSTEM
| Appropriations, 2008 | $15,680,000 |
| Budget estimate, 2009 | ........................... |
| Committee recommendation | 10,000,000 |
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Funding for the Appalachian Development Highway System [ADHS] is authorized under section 1069(y) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (Public Law 102-240). The ADHS program provides funds for the construction of the Appalachian corridor highways in the 13 States that comprise the Appalachian region. These highways, in many instances, are intended to replace some of the most deficient and dangerous segments of rural roadway in America.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for corridor H in West Virginia of the Appalachian Development Highway System [ADHS]. The recommended amount is $5,680,000 less than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
DENALI ACCESS SYSTEM PROGRAM
| Appropriations, 2008 | ........................... |
| Budget estimate, 2009 | ........................... |
| Committee recommendation | $6,000,000 |
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Funding for the Denali Access System is authorized under section 1960 of SAFETEA-LU. The program provides funds to pay for the costs of planning, designing, engineering, and constructing road and other surface transportation infrastructure to provide essential access routes to native villages and rural communities in Alaska.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for the Denali Access System Program. The administration did not request any funding for this program for fiscal year 2009.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
Section 120 distributes obligation authority among Federal-aid highway programs.
Section 121 continues a provision that credits funds received by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics to the Federal-aid highways account.
Section 122 rescinds unobligated balances associated with Public Law 102-240.
Section 123 rescinds unobligated balances associated with Public Law 105-178.
Section 124 rescinds certain funds that are unavailable for use for administrative expenses.
Section 125 rescinds certain funds that are unavailable for use for research activities.
Section 126 appropriates funds for the projects, programs, and activities specified as follows:
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project name Committeerecommendation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
146th Street Corridor Extension, Boone County, IN $500,000
159th and US 69 Interchange Improvements, Overland Park, KS 1,000,000
2300 West Upgrade, 1900 South to 2100 North, UT 1,000,000
5th and Market Street Transportation Improvements, PA 500,000
Advanced Bridge Safety Initiative, ME 500,000
Anchor Lake Project, MS 1,000,000
Ann Arbor-Detroit Regional Rail Project, MI 1,000,000
Artesia Road Bypass, MS 1,000,000
Barnes Crossing Road/Natchez Trace Parkway Bridge, MS 500,000
Bayside Promenade, ME 800,000
Bland Street Improvements, Bland, MO 300,000
Bonneville/Clark One-Way Couplet, NV 500,000
Bossier Parish Congestion Relief Plan, LA 1,000,000
Bridge over Brandywine Creek, PA 750,000
Campus Loop Road Extension for St. John Fisher College, NY 500,000
Cesar Chavez Blvd/Calexico-West Port of Entry Congestion Improvements, CA 3,000,000
City of Tuscaloosa Downtown Revitalization Project--University Blvd and Greensboro Avenue, AL 4,000,000
Cline Avenue Extension, East Chicago, IN 1,000,000
Clinton Street Bridge Replacement, Fort Wayne, IN 500,000
Coalfields Expressway, WV 5,000,000
Construction of Lafayette Interchange, MO 1,000,000
Cumberland Parkway/US 41 Expansion, GA 1,000,000
Decatur Downtown Streetscape Project, AL 350,000
Delaware Avenue Bridge, IA 500,000
East Texas Higher Speed Rail Feasibility Study, TX 300,000
Edward T. Breathitt (Pennyrile) Parkway Completion Project, KY 2,000,000
El Camino East/West Corridor, Winfield, LA 500,000
Establishment of Railroad Quiet Zones in the Town of Hamburg, NY 500,000
FM509 Extension, Harlingen, TX 500,000
Fort Drum Connector (I-81 to Fort Drum North Gate), NY 1,000,000
Freedom Road Transportation Improvement Project, PA 1,750,000
Gate and Intersection Improvements at Fort Lee, VA 1,000,000
Granite Falls Alternate Route, WA 2,500,000
Great Miami Boulevard Extension, OH 500,000
Harden Street Improvements--Phase II, SC 1,000,000
Hastings Bridge, MN 2,000,000
Highway 100 Extension from Edgewood Road to Highway 30, Cedar Rapids, IA 1,000,000
Highway 14-Waseca to Owatonna, MN 2,000,000
Highway 75 Revitalization Project, AL 250,000
Highway 9 Improvements, MS 3,000,000
Hudson River Waterfront Walkway, NJ 500,000
I-10 New Orleans East Upgrades, LA 200,000
I-12 Interchange at LA-16, Denham Springs, LA 750,000
I-295/76/42 Direct Connection, NJ 3,000,000
I-49 South, LA 2,000,000
I-5 to Hwy. 99W Connector, OR 3,000,000
I-540 Interchange Improvements, Washington and Benton Counties, AR 2,000,000
I-555 Access Road, Poinsett County, AR 2,000,000
I-69, Shreveport, LA 2,000,000
I-69, TN 500,000
I-69, TX 500,000
I-93 Kalispell Bypass, MT 3,000,000
I-95 Interchange at SR 202 (Butler Blvd.), FL 1,000,000
Improvements to the Route 60 Bridges over the James River, MO 1,000,000
Improvements to US Route 1 for access to York County Community College, ME 500,000
Improvements to US-54, Seward County, KS 1,000,000
Indian River Inlet Bridge, DE 2,000,000
Intersection Improvements on US 212 and US 81 and Improvements to US 81, SD 1,000,000
Intersection Safety Improvements, Olympia Fields, IL 500,000
Interstate 430/630: Interchange Modification, AR 3,000,000
Interstate 69/Great River Bridge: Highway 65-MS Highway 1, AR 3,000,000
Isabel Swamp Road, Washington Parish, LA 450,000
Joplin Downtown Revitalization, MO 1,000,000
K-7 Corridor Study from 183rd St to 119th Street in Olathe, KS 750,000
King Coal Highway, WV 5,000,000
LA-1 Goldenmeadow to Port Fourchon, LA 650,000
LA 28, Vernon Parish, LA 2,000,000
Lake Charles Riverfront Parkway Development Plan, LA 250,000
Lake Mead Parkway, Phase 2, NV 250,000
Little Bay Bridges/Spaulding Turnpike, NH 2,000,000
Longfellow Bridge Approach Gateway, Cambridge, MA 1,000,000
Martha/I-76 Connection, OH 500,000
McKinley/Riverside Avenues Safety Improvement Project, Muncie, IN 1,000,000
Melbourne International Access Road, FL 1,000,000
Milwaukee Intermodal Station Improvements to Train Shed and Platforms, WI 1,500,000
N.A. Sandifer Highway, MS 315,000
New Hampshire Department of Transportation, U.S. Route 4 Red List Bridge Repair, West Lebanon, NH 1,000,000
New York State Route 12 500,000
Niagara Falls International Railway Station/Intermodal Transportation Center, NY 500,000
Northside Drive, MS 2,000,000
Northwest Loop Access Road, Sandoval County, NM 1,000,000
Page Extension Phase II, MO 1,000,000
Park Avenue Multi-Use Trail, ME 800,000
Pennsylvania High-Speed Maglev Development Program, PA 1,000,000
Peters Road Extension, Plaquemines Parish, LA 650,000
Pinon Hills Boulevard East and Animas River Bridge, NM 1,000,000
Plaza del Sol Project, Village of Angel Fire, NM 350,000
Port Industrial Road Improvement Project, WA 4,000,000
Portsmouth Town Center Plan, RI 1,000,000
Reconstruction of Riverside Drive, CT 1,000,000
Redesign and Reconstruction of I-235 and Kellogg Interchange, Wichita, KS 500,000
Replacement of US-159 Bridge at Rulo, NE 1,200,000
ReTrac Project Enhancements, Reno, NV 250,000
Rickenbacker Intermodal East-West Connector, OH 300,000
Road improvements on Powderhouse Road from SD 42 to Madison Street, Sioux Falls, SD 3,000,000
Route 1/Route 123 Interchange Improvements, VA 1,000,000
Route 1 and Route 34 Connector, CT 500,000
Route 150, MO 1,000,000
Route 5 Improvements in Laclede and Camden Counties, MO 1,000,000
Salt Fork of the Red River Bridge Martha Crossing, OK 1,500,000
SE Connector, SE 6th Street to SE 14th Street (US 69), Des Moines, IA 1,500,000
Shiloh Road, MT 5,000,000
Slide Repair Work along US 60 in Eastern Kanawha County, WV 5,000,000
South Entrance Interchange at Mississippi State University, MS 1,000,000
Southwest Arterial, Dubuque, IA 1,000,000
St. John Medical Center--Broken Arrow Traffic Improvement, OK 250,000
Starkweather Creek Parkway Bike Path, WI 1,000,000
State Route 317, between I-75 and Collegedale in Hamilton County, TN 1,000,000
Steptoe Street Extension Project, WA 2,000,000
TH 610 from US 169 to I-94, Maple Grove, MN 1,000,000
TH-13/CR 5 Interchange, MN 1,000,000
Town of Clarkstown, New City Hamlet, NY to Revitalize South Main Street 500,000
Town of Lexington United Traffic Plan--Phase I, SC 1,000,000
Town of Tamworth, Chocorua Village Safety Project, NH 500,000
Traffic Light--Piedmont Road and Edmond Road, OK 100,000
Trinity River Vision Bridges, Fort Worth, TX 1,000,000
US 101 Safety Improvements at Deer Park, WA 980,000
US 12 Safety Improvements, WA 3,000,000
US 17 Widening, FL 2,000,000
US 2 Safety Improvements, WA 2,000,000
US Highway 30 Improvements, Whiteside County, IL 500,000
US 61 Fort Madison Bypass Interchange at Highway J40, IA 1,000,000
US Highway 59 Safety Improvements, MN 1,000,000
Urban Collector Road along I-10 North, MS 2,000,000
US 169 Highway Widening Environmental Assessment, OK 1,000,000
US Route 64, TN 1,500,000
US-191, Moab to Crescent Junction, UT 2,000,000
US-69 in Bourbon, Crawford, and Cherokee Counties, KS 750,000
V&T Railway Reconstruction Project, NV 500,000
Vermont Route 15 Improvements in Johnson and Essex Junction, VT 3,000,000
West Point Defense Facility Access Improvements, MS 1,000,000
West Virginia Route 10, WV 5,000,000
West Virginia Route 9, WV 7,000,000
Western Beltway Transportation Infrastructure Plan, MS 500,000
Western Kentucky University [WKU], University-Community Bikeway Project, KY 1,000,000
Whiterock Sustainable Trail, Guthrie County, IA 400,000
Zanesville State Street Bridge Renovation and Repair Project, OH 500,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 127 provides requirements for any waiver of Buy American requirements.
Section 128 restores to the Highway Trust Fund precisely the amount of funds that were taken from it after fiscal year 1998.
Section 129 allows funds previously made available in the fiscal year 2008 appropriations act to be used for a new pedestrian and bicycle crossing in Missoula, Montana.
Section 130 continues a provision prohibiting tolling in Texas, with exceptions.
FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [FMCSA] was established within the Department of Transportation by the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act [MCSIA] (Public Law 106-159) in December 1999. Prior to this legislation, motor carrier safety responsibilities were under the jurisdiction of the Federal Highway Administration.
FMCSA's mission is to promote safe commercial motor vehicle operation, and reduce truck and bus crashes. The agency also is charged with reducing fatalities associated with commercial motor vehicles through education, regulation, enforcement, research and innovative technology, thereby achieving a safer and more secure transportation environment. Additionally, FMCSA is responsible for ensuring that all commercial vehicles entering the United States along its southern and northern borders comply with all Federal motor carrier safety and hazardous materials regulations.
Agency resources and activities are expected to contribute to safety in commercial vehicle operations through enforcement, including the use of stronger enforcement measures against safety violators; expedited safety regulation; technology innovation; improvements in information systems; training; and improvements to commercial driver's license testing, recordkeeping, and sanctions. To accomplish these activities, FMCSA is expected to work closely with Federal, State, and local enforcement agencies, the motor carrier industry, highway safety organizations, and individual citizens.
MCSIA and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users [SAFETEA-LU] provides funding authorizations for FMCSA's Motor Carrier Safety Operations and Programs and Motor Carrier Safety Grants. Under these authorizations, funding supports FMCSA's expanded scope as authorized by the USA PATRIOT Act, which created new and enhanced security measures.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a level of $541,000,000 for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. This level is $11,346,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and equal to the budget request. It is also consistent with the level authorized in SAFETEA-LU.
The mission of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [FMCSA] is to safeguard the Nation's highways by regulating the motor carrier industry. The agency is responsible for developing, implementing and enforcing regulations designed to ensure that only qualified drivers and safe vehicles are operating on the Nation's highways. Unfortunately, FMCSA has shown a pattern of undermining its safety mission by proposing weak regulations and failing to provide adequate oversight and enforcement of existing regulations. FMCSA's performance has been criticized not only by the Committee, but by the DOT Inspector General [IG], the Government Accountability Office [GAO], the National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB], as well as the Courts.
The rules that FMCSA has proposed fail to achieve maximum safety benefits, and in some instances may undermine safety. Appropriate hours-of-service standards are important to addressing a major factor identified in many crashes-fatigue. In addition, clear and consistent regulations are critical to the industry, so that they can manage operations in a compliant way; FMCSA has not provided that consistency. In 2003, the agency published a rule updating hours-of service [HOS] regulations. In 2004, in response to a legal challenge of this rule, the Court ruled that the agency's rule was `arbitrary and capricious.' The agency issued another rule in 2005. The regulation was again contested, and in July of last year, the Court wrote, `once again-the agency offered no explanation for its decision during the rulemaking and failed even to respond to the petitioner's argument to its brief.' As a result, the Court vacated two key provisions of the agency's rule-increasing daily driving limits to 11 hours and permitting an off-duty period of 34 hours to restart the weekly on-duty limits. The agency must now once again revise its rulemaking to comply with the law. The Committee expects that, after having the rule struck down twice, the agency will finally issue a rule that provides clear and consistent guidance to the industry and truly protects the safety of drivers and the driving public.
The DOT IG has also questioned FMCSA's effectiveness in achieving compliance in the industry. The IG regularly examines the programs and policies of the Department's agencies and, where warranted, recommends actions to improve the agency's performance. FMCSA currently has 11 open recommendations classified as `key' by the IG. One of these recommendations includes strengthening and clarifying elements of Commercial Drivers License [CDL] programs, such as the testing for CDL knowledge and qualification and training requirements for CDL examiners. This program is critical to ensuring the capability of drivers. This recommendation was made in 2002, and remains open. The Committee notes that FMCSA is now moving forward with a rule addressing its CDL programs. However, the Committee is troubled by the agency's slow response to reforming such a critical program.
The GAO also uncovered deficiencies in the FMCSA's drug testing of commercial truck drivers. GAO had investigators pose as commercial truck drivers, and visit several sites to obtain DOT-required drug tests. Of the 24 collection sites visited, 22 were not in full compliance with protocols covering sample collection. In addition, the GAO found that drivers who have tested positive for drugs with one company can often gain employment with another carrier without positive drug tests being identified. GAO recommended the creation of a national database of positive and refusal-to-test drug and alcohol test results, and that the FMCSA seek the authority to oversee drug collection sites.
The Committee understands that the agency is working towards creating a national database, as recommended by GAO. The Committee directs the agency to submit a letter report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by April 1, 2009, providing a detailed timeline for the implementation of such a database. This report should also identify any additional resources or authorities that the agency requires to improve the drug testing system.
The agency also lacks a comprehensive system to oversee the health of commercial vehicle operators. In 2001, NTSB recommended that FMCSA take action to prevent medically unqualified drivers from operating commercial vehicles. This recommendation was placed on the NTSB's list of `Most Wanted' recommendations--the recommendations NTSB feels will have the greatest impact on safety--in 2003. This recommendation resulted from accident investigations that revealed system flaws that resulted in medically unqualified drivers being issued CDLs. FMCSA recently issued a notice of proposed rulemaking related to this issue. However, this did not satisfy the concerns of the NTSB. As such, the recommendation remains classified as `open--unacceptable' by the NTSB.
The Committee is committed to improving the safety of our Nation's highways and is greatly concerned with the FMCSA's actions, or inaction, related to safety recommendations and regulatory development. While the Committee acknowledges that some progress was made in reducing the number of large truck fatalities in 2006, the agency must continue to improve its safety efforts in order to foster an industry-wide commitment to safety. The Committee believes that the agency's weak regulatory and enforcement efforts undermine its ability to promote safety. The health of the motor carrier industry is important to our Nation's economy. Americans rely on trucks to deliver goods and promote trade. It is critical that the agency work to promote commerce and safety. For highway safety is important to no one more than the commercial drivers that travel the highways every day.
Industry Compliance- Last year, the Committee included information on inspection results and out-of-service rates as a means of evaluating FMCSA's effectiveness in promoting industry compliance. While marginal gains were made in 2007 compared to 2006, the charts show that over two-thirds of inspections continue to uncover violations, and one in five trucks or drivers inspected have violations so severe that they are immediately placed out of service. FMCSA has a great deal of work to do to compel industry compliance.
MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY OPERATIONS AND PROGRAMS
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
| Limitation, 2008 | $229,654,000 |
| Budget estimate, 2009 (limitation) | 234,000,000 |
| Committee recommendation | 234,000,000 |
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This account provides the necessary resources to support motor carrier safety program activities and maintain the agency's administrative infrastructure. Funding supports nationwide motor carrier safety and consumer enforcement efforts, including Federal safety enforcement activities at the U.S./Mexico border to ensure that Mexican carriers entering the United States are in compliance with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. Resources are also provided to fund motor carrier regulatory development and implementation, information management, research and technology, safety education and outreach, and the 24-hour safety and consumer telephone hotline.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of $234,000,000 for FMCSA's Operations and Programs. The Committee has also provided the authority to liquidate an equal amount of contract authorization. The recommendation is $4,346,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and equal to the budget request.
The bill also rescinds $4,887,411 in unobligated balances from amounts made available under this heading in prior appropriations acts.
OPERATING EXPENSES
The Committee recommends $177,500,000 for operating expenses. This level is $5,300,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and equal to the budget request.
Comprehensive Safety Analysis [CSA] 2010- As the Committee noted last year, the agency is undertaking a comprehensive overhaul of all of its systems in order to better target its resources on the riskiest carriers. The agency is also seeking ways to reach more carriers through its inspection efforts by employing interventions that are less resource intensive than a full-scale compliance review. The Committee agrees that the agency's systems and procedures for conducting oversight need to be dramatically improved, and hopes that this initiative will improve the agency's performance.
The agency's CSA2010 has the potential to significantly improve FMCSA's operations. In fact, CSA 2010 promises to meaningfully address the NTSB recommendation that FMCSA improve its operations to prevent unqualified drivers or unfit vehicles from operating. As such, this year, the NTSB changed the status of this recommendation from `open unacceptable' to `open acceptable.' With so many improvements promised through this initiative, it is critical that the agency meet is deadlines and that the operational improvements of CSA2010 are delivered as promised.
The Committee is closely monitoring the progress of this initiative. The chart below identifies the major milestones associated with the development and implementation of CSA2010 as identified by FMCSA. The initiative has nine elements: intervention, safety fitness determination, information technology, reauthorization, training, change management, implementation and testing, and evaluation. The Committee notes that the agency has already completed several tasks including the development of the Behavioral Analysis and Safety Improvement Categories [BASICs] for carriers and drivers. These will be important in identifying and targeting risky carriers for intervention. In addition, the agency began to pilot this initiative in four different States in order to evaluate the effectiveness of new interventions and targeting systems.
The Committee understands that part of the pilot involves using more and different interventions, including off-site investigations. While the Committee appreciates the agency's effort to develop more progressive interventions that will provide the agency with additional oversight tools, the Committee is very concerned that the agency will replace the comprehensive audits, which are effective, with less intensive ones that may be less effective. The Committee will be looking at the number of compliance reviews the agency conducts in the future, to ensure that they are just being more effectively targeted and not being substituted with these less intensive interventions.
Improved Guidance to Enforcement Personnel- Compliance reviews are a critical tool used by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to provide oversight of the motor carrier industry. Last year, a fatal accident on the Capital Beltway (I-495/I-95) involving a commercial truck, uncovered some flaws in the compliance review process. Prior to the accident, the motor carrier involved had undergone a compliance review by the FMCSA, which uncovered few violations. However, in an audit that followed the fatal accident, multiple violations were found and serious penalties were levied. When questioned about this incident at a hearing before the Committee last year, the Administrator committed to examining the incident and implementing any changes necessary to improve the system.
The Committee understands that FMCSA did conduct an internal audit of its systems and practices. As a result, FMCSA updated its policies and trained investigators in the field to ensure that its new policies were being implemented. For example, FMCSA advised its investigators that for motor carriers with 20 drivers, all drivers will be examined, instead of using a sample as was previously done. According to data provided by the agency, these actions are beginning to yield results with a 25 percent increase in Commercial Driver's License violations being logged. Additionally, investigators were directed to more fully investigate the data on individual drivers flagged by the system.
The Committee appreciates the agency's efforts to update its policy and provide the necessary training in the field in order to address the inadequacy it uncovered. The Committee hopes that this will remind the agency that quickly addressing safety shortcomings can deliver important safety benefits.
Targeting High Risk Carriers- The Committee remains focused on FMCSA's ability to meet its requirement to conduct compliance reviews on all motor carriers that are identified as high risk. Last year, the Committee provided the agency with additional funding to support this effort. The Committee understands that these additional resources were used to improve the information technology systems that support the tracking of high risk carriers, and to conduct additional compliance reviews. The Committee also directed the submission of quarterly reports on the agency's ability to meet its requirement to inspect all high risk carriers. The Committee has yet to receive any reports and does not understand why this data is not readily available. The Committee believes that this data is critical in order for the agency to understand how effectively it is meeting its statutory requirement to target the riskiest carriers. The Committee has again directed that an additional $500,000 of the operations budget be dedicated to increasing the number of compliance reviews conducted on high risk carriers. The Committee further directs that the agency take this reduction from the operations accounts, not including personnel and benefits, with at least one-half coming from `other services.' Furthermore, the Committee continues to require the agency to submit quarterly reports on its ability to meet the requirement to inspect all high risk carriers, and has included bill language stipulating that quarterly reports must be submitted to Congress on the last day of each fiscal quarter. In addition, the Committee has included language that reduces the appropriation provided to the agency by $100,000 for each day a report is late. The Committee further directs that if any reduction is necessary, it shall be taken from the Office of the Administrator.
ADA Compliance- The Committee is again voicing is immense frustration at the FMCSA's unwillingness to enforce the Department of Transportation's [DOT] own Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA] regulations for over-the-road curbside operators. FMCSA is the sole agency responsible for granting or revoking operating authority to curbside operators. Yet FMCSA continues to insist that it lacks the authority to revoke or deny operating authority based on an operator's inability or unwillingness to meet DOT's ADA regulations.
The Committee is mystified by FMCSA's consistent efforts to read this responsibility out of its authorities. When this issue was litigated, FMCSA argued that the statute was `clear and unambiguous' that it did not have the authority to deny or revoke operating authority based on a carrier's unwillingness or inability to comply with ADA regulations. The Court disagreed, and ruled that the text of the statute was ambiguous. Instead of taking this as an opportunity to enforce ADA regulations, and protect the rights of disabled Americans' to access transportation, the agency instead sought to clarify again why it could not enforce these regulations.
The Committee continues to believe that FMCSA has the authority, and the responsibility, to enforce of the Department's own ADA regulations. However, since FMCSA insists on shirking this responsibility, the Committee supports the enactment of H.R. 3985, Over-the-Road Bus Transportation Accessibility Act of 2007. This bill was approved unanimously by the House of Representatives and has been reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. The Committee directs the agency to begin preparation now for implementation of this authority, so that if this bill is enacted, there will be no delay in exercising it. The Committee hopes that FMCSA will finally begin to exercise its authority to enforce DOT's ADA regulations and ensure transportation accessibility for persons with disabilities.
PROGRAM EXPENSES
The Committee recommends $56,500,000 for FMCSA's program expenses. Funding is provided for the programs as follows:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008enacted 2009 estimate Committee recommendation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research & Technology $8,900,000 $7,724,000 $7,974,000
Information Management 33,829,000 34,096,000 35,096,000
Regulatory Development 10,725,000 9,680,000 9,180,000
Outreach and Education 3,000,000 4,000,000 3,250,000
CMV Operations Grants 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information Management- The success of the agency's CSA2010 initiative relies, in large part, on maintaining and utilizing high quality data. As the motor carrier industry continues to grow, the agency must improve its system capabilities in order to track and identify the riskiest carriers. FMCSA currently maintains numerous information technology [IT] systems. The COMPASS initiative is designed to create a new operating system. It is expected to become the agency's single source for crucial safety data. Once completed, COMPASS will replace 19 systems currently operating at FMCSA.
The completion of the COMPASS initiative promises to deliver safety benefits. It will also result in various legacy systems being retired, thereby relieving the agency of the costs of maintaining so many different systems. The Committee has therefore included an additional $1,000,000 for the Information Management program and directs that this funding be used solely to enhance the resources budgeted for the COMPASS initiative. The Committee also directs FMCSA to submit a report to the House and Senate Committee on Appropriations by April 15, 2009 that describes in detail how COMPASS funding will be utilized in fiscal year 2009, and what functions this funding will provide to the agency and its users. The report should also include a detailed timeline for each enhancement in system capability, the retirement of existing systems, and associated savings.
Research and Technology- The Committee believes that the agency needs to be exhibiting greater leadership in testing and incorporating advanced technologies into commercial motor vehicles in order to reduce large truck accidents and fatalities. The budget documents accompanying the President's request have provided little detail on what technologies will be tested in fiscal year 2009. The Committee appreciates that the agency is dedicating resources to CSA2010. However, the agency cannot be so focused on this initiative that it misses the opportunity to improve safety by investing in advance technologies with important safety benefits. The Committee has therefore provided an additional $250,000 for the agency to increase research into technologies that promise safety benefits, such as those related to braking systems and lane departure warning systems. The Committee directs FMCSA to deliver a report to the Committee by May 1, 2009 that outlines how all of its research and technology funding will be utilized. Specifically, this report should include the technologies that are being researched or tested and the potential benefits the agency believes these technologies will provide.
Regulatory Development and Oversight- The Committee has provided a funding level of $9,180,000 for this activity. This funding level is $1,545,000 less than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and $500,000 less than the President's request. As the Committee has already noted, FMCSA has continually put out rules that are struck down by the Courts. Since the agency proposes rules that continually fail to meet the intent of important safety mandates and instead develops rules with data and processes questioned by the Courts, the Committee agrees with the Department's decision to cut funding for this activity. The Committee does not believe that funding will be spent by the agency in a manner that will improve the outcomes of the regulatory proposals. In addition the Committee notes that the budget includes funding for evaluation of regulations proposed by the agency. The Committee believes that the number of failed court cases sufficiently explain the effectiveness of the agency's regulatory process, and limits the funding for these activities to $100,000.
MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
(INCLUDING RESCISSION)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidation of contract authorization Limitation on obligations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2008 $300,000,000 $300,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009 307,000,000 307,000,000
Committee recommendation 307,000,000 307,000,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This account provides the necessary resources for Federal grants to support State compliance, enforcement, and other programs. Grants are also provided to States for enforcement efforts at both the southern and northern borders to ensure that all points of entry into the United States are fortified with comprehensive safety measures; improvement of State commercial driver's license [CDL] oversight activities to prevent unqualified drivers from being issued CDLs; and the Performance Registration Information Systems and Management [PRISM] program, which links State motor vehicle registration systems with carrier safety data in order to identify unsafe commercial motor carriers.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of $307,000,000 for motor carrier safety grants. The recommended limitation is consistent with the budget estimate and the amount authorized under SAFETEA-LU. The Committee has also provided the authority to liquidate an equal amount of contract authorization.
The Committee recommendation is $7,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. The Committee recommends a separate limitation on obligations for each grant program funded under this account with the following funding allocations:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motor carrier safety assistance program [MCSAP] $209,000,000
Commercial driver's license and driver improvement program 25,000,000
Border enforcement grants 32,000,000
Performance and registration information system management [PRISM] grants 5,000,000
Commercial vehicle information systems and networks [CVISN] grants 25,000,000
Safety Data Improvement 3,000,000
CDLIS 8,000,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oversight of MCSAP- The FMCSA relies on its State and local partners to assist the agency in the enforcement of motor carrier regulations. FMCSA anticipates that in fiscal year 2009, there will be approximately 2 million driver and vehicle inspections; 3,700 compliance reviews; and 26,500 new entrant audits conducted by the States. FMCSA supports the efforts by providing grant money to the States. In order to receive this funding, each State must demonstrate that it has adequate motor carrier regulations and must submit a Commercial Vehicle Safety Plan [CVSP], which is reviewed and approved by FMCSA. The Committee notes that a GAO report issued in December 2005 questioned whether FMCSA was providing an adequate level of oversight to the MCSAP program. The Committee understands that FMCSA is responding to GAO's recommendations. The Committee wants to ensure that this funding is being used to effectively reduce highway fatalities and improve the safety of our Nation's highways, and looks forward to the GAO's follow up report on this topic.
The bill also rescinds $4,231,228 in unobligated balances from amounts made available under this heading in prior appropriations acts.
MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
(RESCISSION)
The bill rescinds $1,390,201 in unobligated balances from amounts made available under this heading in prior appropriations acts.
NATIONAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY PROGRAM
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
(RESCISSION)
The bill rescinds $14,903,792 in unobligated balances from amounts made available under this heading in prior appropriations acts.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
Section 135 subjects the funds in this act to section 350 of Public Law 107-87 in order to ensure the safety of all cross-border long haul operations conducted by Mexican-domiciled commercial carriers.
Section 136 continues a provision included in fiscal year 2008 that limits the ability of the Department to use funds to establish a cross-border demonstration program with Mexico.
Section 137 prevents the Department from using any funds to establish, implement, continue, promote, or in any way permit a cross-border demonstration program with Mexico.
NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] is responsible for motor vehicle safety, highway safety behavioral programs, and the motor vehicle information and automobile fuel economy programs. The Federal Government's regulatory role in motor vehicle and highway safety began in September 1966 with the enactment of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (codified as chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code) and the Highway Safety Act of 1966 (codified as chapter 4 of title 23, United States Code). The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 instructs the Secretary to reduce traffic crashes and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic crashes; establish motor vehicle safety standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment in interstate commerce; carry out needed safety research and development; and expand the National Driver Register. The Highway Safety Act of 1966 instructs the Secretary to increase highway safety by providing for a coordinated national highway safety program through financial assistance to the States.
In October 1966, these activities, originally under the jurisdiction of the Department of Commerce, were transferred to the Department of Transportation, to be carried out through the National Traffic Safety Bureau. In March 1970, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] was established as a separate organizational entity in the Department. It succeeded the National Highway Safety Bureau, which previously had administered traffic and highway safety functions as an organizational unit of the Federal Highway Administration.
NHTSA's mission was expanded in October 1972 with the enactment of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (now codified as chapters 321, 323, 325, 327, 329, and 331 of title 49, United States Code). This act as originally enacted, instructs the Secretary to establish low-speed collision bumper standards, consumer information activities, and odometer regulations. Three major amendments to this act have been enacted: (1) a December 1975 amendment directs the Secretary to set and administer mandatory automotive fuel economy standards; (2) an October 1984 amendment directs the Secretary to require certain passenger motor vehicles and their major replacement parts to be marked with identifying numbers or symbols; and (3) an October 1992 amendment directs the Secretary to set and administer automobile content labeling requirements.
NHTSA's current programs are authorized in five major laws: (1) the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code); (2) the Highway Safety Act (chapter 4 of title 23, United States Code); (3) the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act [MVICSA] (part C of subtitle VI of title 49, United States Code); (4) the National Driver Register Act of 1982; and (5) the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users [SAFETEA-LU].
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides for the establishment and enforcement of safety standards for vehicles and associated equipment and the conduct of supporting research, including the acquisition of required testing facilities and the operation of the National Driver Register, which was reauthorized by the National Driver Register Act of 1982.
The Highway Safety Act provides for coordinated national highway safety programs (section 402 of title 23, United States Code) to be carried out by the States and for highway safety research, development, and demonstration programs (section 403 of title 23, United States Code). The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-690) authorized a new drunk driving prevention program (section 410 of title 23, United States Code) to make grants to States to implement and enforce drunk driving prevention programs.
SAFETEA-LU, which was enacted on August 10, 2005, either reauthorized or added new authorizations for the full range of NHTSA programs for fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $855,000,000 for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA]. This funding is $4,000,000 more than the President's request and $17,428,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
The following table summarizes the Committee recommendations:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Fiscal year-- Committee recommendation
2008 enacted 2009 estimate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations and Research $234,322,000 $227,500,000 $231,500,000
National Driver Register 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
Highway Traffic Safety Grants 599,250,000 619,500,000 619,500,000
Total 837,572,000 851,000,000 855,000,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway fatalities remain the leading cause of death in the Nation for almost every age 3 to 34. In 2006, there were 42,642 motor vehicle fatalities in the United States. With so many Americans losing their lives on our Nation's highways, the mission and purpose of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] remains central to the Nation's safety agenda.
The Department of Transportation and NHTSA enjoyed some level of progress last year in reducing both the number and rate of highway fatalities. However, even as it achieved the lowest fatality rate ever recorded, the Department still fell short of meeting the fatality goal it had set for itself in 2006. This underscores the challenges that DOT and NHTSA face in meeting its goal of 1.0 fatality per 100 million vehicle miles traveled [VMT] by 2011. As the chart below demonstrates, dramatic reductions would have to be achieved consistently over the next few years to reach this important goal.
After examining the performance goals for the Department included in its budget justification, as well as a report the Secretary submitted to Congress, the Committee does not believe that the Department has the ability to reach its 1.0 fatality rate goal by 2011. For example, the Department is lowering its fatality rate goal from 1.37 fatalities per 100 million VMT in fiscal year 2008 to 1.35 fatalities per 100 million VMT in 2009. In establishing such a modest goal for next year, the Committee cannot understand how the Department expects to reach the 1.0 fatality rate goal just 2 years later. The Department continues to assert its commitment to achieving this goal by 2011, but has not yet presented the Committee with a plan that demonstrates how this dramatic progress will be achieved.
Within this goal, the Department has established and set goals in four subcategories of highway safety. These four subcomponents of the overall fatality rate goal are: passenger vehicle occupant deaths; motorcycle rider fatalities; large truck and bus fatalities; and non-occupant highway fatalities. While the Department's goals suggest steady progress in reducing the number of occupant deaths every year, in the case of motorcycles, the Department is projecting either an increase or no progress for every year through 2013. The Department is also expecting little success in reducing the number of non-occupant fatalities. For example, the Department's goals in 2009 and 2010 remain unchanged from its goal in 2008; it is not until 2011, that the Department's goals anticipate any progress.
The Committee agrees that performance goals should be based, in part, on a realistic assessment of progress based on data. However, the Committee expects NHTSA to provide the leadership necessary to reverse the stagnant or upward trends in highway fatalities, such as those seen in the area of motorcycle fatalities. Moreover, the Committee expects DOT and NHTSA to use all available tools to create innovative solutions to the problems the data demonstrate, or seek additional authorities that will allow them to have a greater impact on highway safety. Instead, the performance goals presented as part of the administration's budget suggest that the Department has resigned itself to making little progress in the most challenging areas of highway safety, or is unwilling or unable to establish new policies that will successfully reduce the number of highway fatalities.
The Committee does acknowledge the increased attention that the Secretary brought to the issue of highway traffic safety this year with the announcement of the Rural Safety Initiative, as well as the production and release of a public safety announcement on motorcycle safety, based on her own motorcycle accident. These efforts target two highway safety issues that are critically important to achieving dramatic decreases in fatalities. However, the goals established by DOT raise questions about how much impact the Department believes these initiatives will have.
The Committee expects DOT to continue to seek innovative policies, but hopes that these new approaches will demonstrate real reductions in highway fatalities. Therefore, the Committee once again directs NHTSA to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 120 days after the enactment of this act on the activities and initiatives that will enable the Department to achieve its goal of 1 fatality per 100 million VMT by 2011. This report should continue to include the performance goals established by the Department, and should also include more specific, quantifiable goals that demonstrate the efforts that NHTSA is undertaking to achieve this important goal. This report should also include any additional regulatory or legislative changes that would assist NHTSA in its efforts. This will be especially important as Congress looks to reauthorize safety programs as part of the next surface transportation authorization bill.
OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH
| Appropriations, 2008 | $234,322,000 |
| Budget estimate, 2009 | 227,500,000 |
| Committee recommendation | 231,500,000 |
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
These programs support traffic safety programs and related research, demonstrations, technical assistance, and national leadership for highway safety programs conducted by State and local government, the private sector, universities, research units, and various safety associations and organizations. These highway safety programs emphasize alcohol and drug countermeasures, vehicle occupant protection, traffic law enforcement, emergency medical and trauma care systems, traffic records and licensing, State and community traffic safety evaluations, motorcycle riders, pedestrian and bicycle safety, pupil transportation, distracted and drowsy driving, young and older driver safety programs, and development of improved accident investigation procedures.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee has provided $231,500,000 for Operations and Research. This level is $2,822,000 less than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and $4,000,000 more than the budget request. The funding provided supports the behavioral and vehicle safety programs of NHTSA, $126,000,000 is derived from the General Fund and $105,500,000 is derived from the Highway Trust Fund, as authorized in SAFETEA-LU.
The Committee recommends funds to be distributed to the following program activities in the following amounts:
------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------
Safety Performance $16,968,000
Enforcement 17,477,000
Highway Safety Programs 43,209,000
Research and Analysis 58,578,000
Administrative Expenses 95,268,000
------------------------------------
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
The Committee recommends $95,268,000 for administrative and related operating expenses associated with carrying out the agency's Behavioral Research program as authorized by section 403 of title 23, U.S.C. and with Vehicle Research program as authorized by chapter 301 of title 49, and part C of subtitle VI of title 49, U.S.C.
Budget Documentation- The Committee has again directed NHTSA to submit a report on the agency's plans for helping the Department achieve the goal of 1 fatality per 100 million VMT by 2011, including new initiatives and proposals that will enable the agency to meet that goal. NHTSA should integrate detailed plans set out in this report into its fiscal year 2010 performance budget including appropriate quantifiable measures of success.
SAFETY PERFORMANCE
Fuel Economy- In December 2007, Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act [EISA], which requires increased fuel efficiency standards for passenger vehicles for the first time in 30 years. Congress also called on NHTSA to expand its regulation of vehicles to include non-passenger automobiles, work trucks and commercial medium-duty or heavy-duty on-highway vehicles. In order to ensure that the agency has sufficient funding to meet the critical deadlines set by Congress, the Committee has recommended a funding level of $4,180,000 for the agency's fuel economy program, which is $2,300,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and $300,000 more than the President's request. This funding is to be used to implement the requirements of the EISA Act including the evaluation of fuel economy standards for trucks as well as labeling fuel economy information.
New Car Assessment Program- The Committee continues to support NHTSA's efforts to update and modernize the New Car Assessment Program. The Committee has therefore included the President's request of $10,393,000 for the NCAP program, which will allow NHTSA to test the same number of vehicle models as they are testing in the current year while incorporating additional tests and technologies into the program.
In addition, the Committee noted last year that NHTSA had identified that parents were experiencing some challenges with appropriately using the Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children [LATCH] installation systems. The Committee is therefore pleased that NHTSA took steps to update the child restraint system's ease of use ratings related to these systems, and hopes NHTSA will continue to work to make these systems more effective.
SAFETY ASSURANCE
The Committee includes $17,477,000 for NHTSA's enforcement activities consistent with the budget request. This funding supports the agency's efforts to ensure the safety of vehicles on our roads by enforcing compliance with safety standards and investigating safety-related defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The recommended level of funding will support NHTSA's efforts to enforce CAFE regulations for passenger vehicles and light trucks. This program also supports the enforcement of Federal odometer laws and encourages the enforcement of State odometer laws.
HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAM
The Committee recommends funds to be distributed to the following program activities in the following amounts:
-----------------------------------------------------
Amount
-----------------------------------------------------
Impaired Driving $11,206,000
Drug Impaired Driving 1,488,000
Pedestrians/Bicycle/Pupil Transportation 1,453,000
Older Driver Safety 1,700,000
Motorcycle Safety 992,000
National Occupant Protection 10,282,000
Enforcement and Justice Services 3,113,000
Emergency Medical Services 2,144,000
E-911 Implementation 1,250,000
NEMSiS 850,000
Driver Licensing 1,002,000
Highway Safety Research 1 7,041,000
Emerging Traffic Safety Issues 588,000
International Programs 100,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Alcohol-related Fatalities- The latest data from NHTSA, based on the Fatality Analysis Reporting System [FARS] and the National Automotive Sampling System [NASS] show that alcohol-related fatalities are one of the leading causes of highway fatalities. Over 31 percent of all highway fatalities involved drivers with alcohol levels with a blood alcohol level of .08 or above.
In August 2007 NHTSA held a public meeting on the use of ignition interlock systems, which included judges, court professionals, safety equipment manufacturers and national safety advocates. It is clear from the meeting that alcohol ignition interlock systems hold great promise for bringing about reductions in alcohol-related fatalities. However, there are challenges related to the intrusiveness of the technology and their use as a penalty that must be overcome if ignition interlock systems are to have maximum impact.
In an effort to increase the effectiveness and use of ignition interlocks, NHTSA is exploring ways to advance interlock technologies. It has therefore partnered with leading automobile manufacturers in the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety [ACTS] interlock initiative. The Committee has provided $1,000,000 as requested for this cooperative research agreement that seeks to develop alcohol detection technologies that are less intrusive than ignition interlocks with the hope of greater public acceptance for installation in vehicles. The development of advanced alcohol technologies is one of the key elements of the Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving, which has brought together Mother's Against Drunk Driving [MADD], major leading auto manufacturers, and responsible distilled spirit companies with a goal to eliminate drunk driving.
In addition to making some improvements to interlock technologies, it is also important to expand their use as a penalty for drunk drivers. According to NHTSA, currently, interlocks are only used on about 20 percent of the driving-while-intoxicated [DWI] cases for which they are available. In an effort to increase their use as part of the prosecutorial and judicial process, the Committee has provided $3,113,000 for Enforcement and Judicial Services. This level of funding is $414,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and $600,000 more than the budget request. The Committee directs that funding over the requested amount be used to increase the Traffic Safety Resources Positions and improve the education and training for judges around the use of ignition interlocks as a penalty for drunk drivers. The Committee further directs NHTSA to submit a plan by May 31, 2009 detailing how the additional funding provided will be used. The Committee expects that these funds will be used in a manner that will increase the use of ignition interlocks, through such activities as the expansion and improvement of judicial training and outreach.
Motorcycle Fatalities- Motorcycle fatalities increased in 2006 for the ninth consecutive year. There were 4,810 motorcycle fatalities, and for the first time since 1975, motorcycle rider fatalities surpassed the number of pedestrian fatalities. Rising motorcycle fatalities have continued to be a major impediment to the Department's ability to meet its 1.0 fatality goal, and the Department must take steps to reverse this trend.
Motorcycle helmets have been proven as an effective way to prevent motorcycle fatalities. As Secretary Peters noted in testimony before the Committee this year, `we could have saved easily 700 lives last year if all motorcyclists wore helmets.' The Government Accountability Office [GAO] also evaluated the impact of universal helmet laws on motorcycle fatalities in a report it released in 1991. This report examined twenty studies that compared the motorcycle fatality rates under universal helmet laws to those without universal helmet laws, either before enactment or after repeal. GAO concluded, `These studies consistently showed that fatality rates were lower when universal helmet laws were in effect; most rates ranged from 20 to 40 percent lower.' However, only 20 States, as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have universal helmet laws.
The Committee believes that States have the right to decide their own laws. However, the Committee also believes that the Nation's chief transportation official must have the authority to advocate on behalf of the enactment of safety laws by the States. At present, section 7104 of Public Law 105-178 hinders those efforts. Public Law 109-59 loosened those restrictions to allow the Secretary to engage in activities with State and State legislatures to consider proposals related to safety belt use laws. The Committee has included a provision to extend this authority to motorcycle helmet laws.
The Secretary of Transportation must have the ability to advocate on behalf of proven methods to reduce highway fatalities, including the enactment of universal helmet laws. The Secretary agrees, and when asked at a hearing before the Committee if she would support an exemption that would allow her to advocate for motorcycle helmet laws, she testified simply, `yes, I would.' The Committee has therefore included language that removes, for fiscal year 2009, the restriction on the Secretary's ability to go to States and advocate on behalf of motorcycle helmet laws.
Safety Belts- Data show that seat belts are the most effective countermeasure available to passenger vehicle passengers to prevent fatalities and serious injuries in traffic crashes. Moreover, a recent study from NHTSA points out that States with primary enforcement laws have lower fatality rates than States that have either secondary laws or no seat belt laws. According to the study, the fatality rate per 100 million VMT for primary enforcement States is 9 percent lower than States without primary seat belt laws. This again raises the importance of NHTSA exhibiting strong leadership in trying to assist States in passing additional primary seat belt laws.
Last year, the Committee requested that NHTSA submit quarterly reports to Congress on its efforts to work toward the implementation of primary seat belt laws in all 50 States. To date, there are only 25 States as well as the District of Columbia and the 4 territories that have primary seat belt laws. By NHTSA's own estimates, over 5,400 additional lives could have been saved if passengers had been wearing seat belts, and the enactment and enforcement of primary seat belts are an important part of lowering the number of highway fatalities. The Committee expects NHTSA and the Secretary to work to advocate for the enactment of primary seat belt laws and increased use of seat belt usage. The Committee also continues to request quarterly reports on the agency's and the Secretary's efforts in this area.
Teen Drivers- The Committee strongly believes that NHTSA must continue to vigorously pursue strategies to reduce impaired and dangerous driving among age groups that represent the highest risks. According to NHTSA, teenagers are involved in three times as many fatal crashes as all other drivers. Recognizing that teenage and young adult drivers are at enhanced risk of being involved in an alcohol-related fatal crash, the Committee applauds NHTSA's ongoing collaboration with Students Against Destructive Decisions [SADD] and other national organizations focused on reducing underage drinking and promoting positive decisionmaking among young people. The Committee encourages NHTSA to continue to seek ways to enlist youth in addressing the behaviors that place youth at risk in motor vehicles. NHTSA is also encouraged to support additional research to prove the impact and effectiveness of peer-to-peer youth education and prevention programs.
National Emergency Medical Services [EMS] Information System- The Committee recommends a funding level of $850,000 for the implementation of a National Emergency Medical Services Information System [NEMSIS] by the National Center for Statistics and Analysis [NCSA] and for the continued support of the NEMSIS Technical Assistance Center. This level of funding is $600,000 more than the budget request and $100,000 more than to the level provided in fiscal year 2008. There are currently 8 States submitting data to the national EMS database with as many as 15 more States and territories expected to begin submitting data this year. The next steps in NEMSIS development will be the full implementation of a national EMS database, full operation of a NEMSIS Technical Assistance Center, and eventual support of State data collection systems. Data provided to the EMS database are important to improving EMS training based on the cases EMS personnel are likely to see, as well as improving the response planning and resource allocation. The Committee believes that a comprehensive EMS system is critical to providing prompt, quality care to automobile crash victims.
RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS
Dynamic Testing Research- The Committee strongly supports the use of dynamic testing to evaluate the performance of vehicles involved in crashes under real world conditions. Every year, over 10,000 fatalities on our Nation's highways involve rollover incidents. Currently, NHTSA does not have a dynamic test that can simulate rollover crash conditions. The Committee understands that there are concerns that dynamic test crashes may not be sufficiently repeatable to yield reliable data. At the same time, the development of such a test holds great promise in improving standards that will help protect vehicle passengers involved in rollover accidents, especially in evaluating the performance of restraints, ejection mitigation, and roof conditions during rollover situations. The Committee believes that NHTSA should evaluate and analyze how such a test might be developed or improved to meet its testing needs. The Committee has included $1,400,000 more than the budget request for safety standards support and directs that $1,000,000 of this increase be used to support this effort.
Plastic and Composite Vehicles- The Committee recognizes the development of plastics and polymer-based composites in the automotive industry and the important role these technologies play in improving automobile performance. The Committee recommends an additional $500,000 to continue research into the possible safety benefits of Lightweight Plastics and Composite Intensive Vehicles [PCIV]. The program will help facilitate a foundation of cooperation between DOT, the Department of Energy and industry stakeholders for the development of safety-centered approaches for future lightweight automotive design.
Improved Data- The Committee believes that data is critical to assisting NHTSA in developing programs and policies that will be the most effective in reducing the number of highway fatalities. NHTSA relies on the Fatality Analysis Reporting System [FARS] as the principal source of nationwide data on motor vehicle fatalities. It is critical that these systems continue to provide NHTSA with the best available data. These data are essential to directing resources in a manner that saves the most lives. The Committee has included $8,472,000 for FARS for fiscal year 2009 including $1,300,000 for early FARS. This is $300,000 more than the budget request and $50,000 more than the level provided in fiscal year 2008. The Committee expects that the additional resources provided will improve the agency's ability to produce better data more quickly.
NHTSA also relies on the National Automotive Sampling System [NASS] for in-depth data on crash-related non-fatal injuries. These data assist NTHSA in understanding the relationship between vehicle crash severity and occupant injury. The Committee has included $12,530,000 for NASS in fiscal year 2009. This funding level, which is $50,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and $300,000 more than the President's request, will allow the agency to have a more robust data sample.
NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidation of contractauthorization Limitation on obligations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2008 $4,000,000 $4,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009 4,000,000 4,000,000
Committee recommendation 4,000,000 4,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
This account provides funding to implement and operate the Problem Driver Pointer System [PDPS] and improve traffic safety by assisting State motor vehicle administrators in communicating effectively and efficiently with other States to identify drivers whose licenses have been suspended or revoked for serious traffic offenses such as driving under the influence of alcohol or other drugs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
The Committee recommends a liquidation of contract authorization of $4,000,000 for payment on obligations incurred in carryout provisions of the National Driver Register Act. The recommended liquidating cash appropriation is equal to the budget estimate and is equal to the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS
The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of $4,000,000 for the National Driver Register. The recommended limitation is the same as the budget request and the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidation of contract authorization Limitation onobligations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2008 $599,250,000 $599,250,000
Budget estimate, 2009 619,500,000 619,500,000
Committee recommendation 619,500,000 619,500,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
SAFETEA-LU reauthorizes three State grant programs: highway safety programs, occupant protection incentive grants, and alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures incentive grants; and authorizes for the first time an additional five State programs: safety belt performance grants, State traffic safety information systems improvement grants, high visibility enforcement program, child safety and child booster seat safety incentive grants, and motorcyclist safety grants.
SAFETEA-LU established a new safety belt performance incentive grant program under section 406 of title 23, United States Code; SAFETEA-LU also established a new State traffic safety information system improvement program incentive grants program under section 408 of title 23, United States Code; SAFETEA-LU amended the alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures incentive grant program authorized by section 410 of title 23, United States Code; SAFETEA-LU establishes a new program to administer at least two high-visibility traffic safety law enforcement campaigns each year to achieve one or both of the following objectives: (1) reduce alcohol-impaired or drug-impaired operation of motor vehicles; and/or (2) increase the use of safety belts by occupants of motor vehicles.
Motorcyclist Safety- Section 2010 of SAFETEA-LU established a new program of incentive grants for motorcycle safety training and motorcyclist awareness programs.
Child Safety- Section 2011 of SAFETEA-LU established a new incentive grant program these grants may be used only for child safety seat and child restraint programs.
Grant Administrative Expenses- Section 2001(a)(11) of SAFETEA-LU provides funding for salaries and operating expenses related to the administration of the grants programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of $619,500,000 for the highway traffic safety grant programs funded under this heading. The recommended limitation is equal to the budget estimate and $20,250,000 more than fiscal year 2008 enacted level. The Committee has also provided the authority to liquidate an equal amount of contract authorization.
The Committee continues to recommend 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.
The Committee recommends a separate limitation on obligations for administrative expenses and for each grant program as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway Safety Programs (section 402) $235,000,000
Occupant Protection Incentive Grants (section 405) 25,000,000
Safety Belt Performance Grants (section 406) 124,500,000
State Traffic Safety Information System Improvements Grants (section 408) 34,500,000
Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive Grants (section 410) 139,000,000
Motorcyclist Safety Grants (section 2010) 7,000,000
Child Safety and Child Booster Seat Safety Incentive Grants (section 2011) 7,000,000
High Visibility Enforcement Program (section 2009) 29,000,000
Administrative Expenses 18,500,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Performance Measures- The Committee notes that there have been reports by both the Government Accountability Office and the DOT Inspector General recommending that NHTSA improve its performance measures for State grants. These grant programs direct resources to remedies that are vitally important to reducing the number of Americans that die on our Nation's highways every year. The funding provided allows States to use resources to most appropriately meet the needs of their State, including reducing alcohol-impaired driving, increasing the use of seat belts, and ensuring that children are in booster seats. However, over the last several years, NHTSA has not achieved the dramatic reductions in the number of fatalities that the Department and the Committee would have liked to have seen. The Committee believes that it is critical for NHTSA to ensure that these grants are not only being spent in an appropriate manner, but also that they are achieving the kind of results that are necessary to improve the safety of our Nation's highways. The Committee expects NHTSA to improve the performance measures, so that we can be sure that the funding provided to States is having its intended impact. The Committee directs the agency to submit a plan for how the agency will improve performance measures and the timeline for implementation of these performance measures in the States.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
Section 140 allows $130,000 of obligation authority for section 402 of title 23 U.S.C. to be available to pay for travel and expenses for State management reviews and highway safety staff core competency development training.
Section 141 includes a provision that rescinds $1,314,648 in unobligated balances from amounts made available under the heading `Operations and Research' in prior appropriations acts.
Section 142 includes a provision that rescinds $534,000 in unobligated balances from amounts made available under the heading `National Driver Register' in prior appropriations acts.
Section 143 includes a provision that rescinds $50,000,000 in unobligated balances from amounts made available under the heading `Highway Traffic Safety Grants' in prior appropriations acts.
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION
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 infrastructure are also administered by the Federal Railroad Administration.
SAFETY AND OPERATIONS
| Appropriations, 2008 | $150,193,499 |
| Budget estimate, 2009 | 156,745,000 |
| Committee recommendation | 158,745,000 |
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Safety and Operations account provides support for FRA rail safety activities and all other administrative and operating activities related to staff and programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $158,745,000 for Safety and Operations for fiscal year 2009, which is $2,000,000 more than the budget request and $8,551,501 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. Of this amount the bill specifies that, $12,268,890 remains available until expended.
Risk Reduction- In 2005, the FRA published its first National Rail Safety Action Plan. This report presented the agency's new focus on addressing the highest risk areas for railroad accidents-- human behaviors and defective track. In addition, the FRA began targeting inspections to those locations that data indicated were the most likely to pose a risk to safety.
Two months ago, the FRA completed its update to the action plan, launching a new `FRA Risk Reduction Strategy' to improve rail safety by working more closely with rail management and labor. The FRA intends to cooperate with the rail industry to analyze safety problems and then address those problems with corrective actions before they cause accidents. The Committee commends the FRA for further developing its risk-based approach to safety oversight and for seeking the most efficient use of its resources. FRA can inspect less than one percent of the railroads' operations each year, and so the agency must find innovative ways of improving safety.
The success of the FRA's new risk reduction strategy will rely heavily on voluntary actions taken by the railroads themselves. For this reason, the Committee directs the FRA to use $1,300,000 of the increase provided to promote industry participation in the agency's new strategy. This total increase includes $500,000 for an additional site in the Close Call Confidential Reporting System [C3RS] Pilot Study initiative. This initiative is designed to create a non-punitive environment in which information on near accidents can be reported and used to identify areas of risk. The total increase also includes $800,000 for FRA to contribute to an additional pilot project in the Risk Reduction Program [RRP]. This program helps carriers identify underlying factors that contribute to accidents, address those risks, create measurable goals, and establish reporting processes.
Safety Inspectors- The Committee notes that the budget request submitted by the FRA included funding for four additional bridge inspectors and two additional specialists in tank car technology. The Committee appreciates the priority that the administration has placed on increasing safety-related staff for the FRA. The Committee recommendation includes an additional $700,000 in order to pay for increased safety inspection staff and related travel expenses.
RAILROAD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
| Appropriations, 2008 | $35,964,400 |
| Budget estimate, 2009 | 33,950,000 |
| Committee recommendation | 34,000,000 |
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Railroad Research and Development provides for research in the development of safety and performance standards for railroads and the evaluation of their role in the Nation's transportation infrastructure.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $34,000,000 for railroad research and development, which is $50,000 more than the budget request and $1,964,400 less than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level.
Within the amount provided, the Committee recommends:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project name Committee recommendation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PEERS Rail Grade Crossing Safety program, Illinois, to improve rail-grade crossing through education and enforcement activities $500,000
Constructed Facilities Center at West Virginia University, West Virginia, for the development of safe construction and maintenance practices that utilize advanced blast materials and structural systems 250,000
Ohio Hub Cleveland-Columbus Rail Corridor, Ohio, for a programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 500,000
Track Stability Technology, Marshall University, West Virginia, for the development of new track stability technologies using the State's rail lines as the test bed for calibrations 500,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL GRANT PROGRAM
| Appropriations, 2008 | ........................... |
| Budget estimate, 2009 | $100,000,000 |
| Committee recommendation | ........................... |
The President's budget request includes $100,000,000 for a new capital grant program to encourage State participation in passenger rail service. Under the proposed program, a State or States would apply to the Federal Railroad Administration for grants for up to 50 percent of the cost of capital investments necessary to support improved intercity passenger rail service. The Committee has not provided funding for this program, choosing instead to direct $100,000,000 to a new `Capital Assistance to States Intercity Passenger Rail Service' program. This alternative program will fund similar activities as the President's program but on a reimbursable basis with slightly modified criteria.
RAILROAD REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT FINANCING PROGRAM
The Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing [RRIF] program was established by Public Law 109-178 to provide direct loans and loan guarantees to State and local governments, government-sponsored entities, or railroads. Credit assistance under the program may be used for rehabilitating or developing rail equipment and facilities. No Federal appropriation is required to implement the program because a non-Federal partner may contribute the subsidy amount required by the Credit Reform Act of 1990 in the form of a credit risk premium.
The Committee continues bill language specifying that no new direct loans or loan guarantee commitments may be made using Federal funds for the payment of any credit premium amount during fiscal year 2009. The Committee rejects proposal language from the administration to impose an artificial cap on the amount of principal supported through the RRIF program.
RAIL LINE RELOCATION AND IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
| Appropriations, 2008 | $20,145,000 |
| Budget estimate, 2009 | ........................... |
| Committee recommendation | 20,000,000 |
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $20,000,000 for the Rail Line Relocation and Improvement Program, which is $145,000 less than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. The administration requested no appropriation for this program in fiscal year 2009. Under this program, the FRA provides grants to States to fund the relocation and improvement of railroad lines. In awarding these grants, the FRA takes into consideration the effect that the proposed railroad project will have on freight and passenger operations, as well as the effect it will have on motor vehicle and pedestrian traffic and safety, community quality of life, and area commerce. Within the funding available to the Rail Line Relocation and Improvement program, funds are to be made available to the following projects and activities:
RAIL LINE RELOCATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project name Committee recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COLT Overpass over US 63, Boone County, MO $1,000,000
Passenger Rail Corridor CREATE Projects, Chicago, IL 2,000,000
Phase 3 Rail Rehabilitation in Redwood Falls, MN 1,000,000
Short Line Rehabilitating, Salem, NJ 1,000,000
Transbay Transit Center, San Francisco, CA 2,000,000
West Freight Access Project, Port of Vancouver, WA 1,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAPITAL ASSISTANCE TO STATES--INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE
| Appropriations, 2008 | $30,000,000 |
| Budget estimate, 2009 | ........................... |
| Committee recommendation | 100,000,000 |
The Committee has provided $100,000,000 for capital assistance to States to promote new intercity passenger rail service as well as improve existing passenger rail corridors. This program was first funded in 2008 at the level of $30,000,000. Applications for first round of grants were due to the Federal Railroad Administration by June 30, 2009. This program shares many of the objectives of the Intercity Passenger Rail Grant Program included in the President's budget for 2009. As in the case of the President's proposed program, States may apply for grants of up to 50 percent of the cost of capital investments necessary to support improved intercity passenger rail service.
In allocating grant funding under this program, the Federal Railroad Administrator shall continue to give priority to projects to improve rail services that require either little or no Federal operating subsidy, projects where States have made a financial commitment to improve the safety of highway/rail grade crossings over which the passenger service operates, and projects that involve a commitment by freight railroads of financial resources commensurate with the benefit expected to their operations. Funds made available under this program shall be subject to the same terms and conditions relating to labor standards as capital funds made available to Amtrak.
The Committee believes that this program holds promise to alleviate some of the on-time performance problems plaguing Amtrak long-distance and State-supported trains. Despite differences of opinion over the best solutions to this problem, there was unanimity among witnesses before the Committee from Amtrak, the FRA, and the DOT Inspector General, that capital investment involving both public and freight contributions would be an important factor in improving on-time performance. As such, the proposed program incorporates the identical incentive included in the administration's proposed program; namely, that priority be given to projects that involve a commitment by host freight railroads to an enforceable on-time performance of passenger trains of 80 percent or greater. Also, as in the case of the administration's proposed program, States applying for assistance must first include intercity passenger rail service as an integral part of their statewide transportation planning activities and any capital improvement for which assistance is sought must first appear on the requesting State's Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan [STIP].
THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK)
The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) operates intercity passenger rail services in 46 States and the District of Columbia, in addition to serving as a contractor in various capacities for several commuter rail agencies. Congress created Amtrak in the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-518) in response to private carriers' inability to profitably operate intercity passenger rail service. Thereafter, Amtrak assumed the common carrier obligations of the private railroads in exchange for the right to priority access of their tracks for incremental cost.
Amtrak Ridership Increases- The Committee continues to be pleased with Amtrak's successful efforts at boosting ridership across all segments of its national rail network. As displayed below, ridership is expected to increase by almost 4 million passengers or 16 percent just between 2006 and the close of the current year. Within the last month, surging ridership resulting from increased fuel prices has required Amtrak to adjust upward its estimated ridership growth in comparison to last year from 8.7 percent to 9.6 percent.
Notably, the strongest percentage growth is Amtrak ridership is not expected to be on the Northeast Corridor but over Amtrak's network of State-supported and short distance trains around the country. Amtrak's long distance network is expected to see ridership growth of more than 300,000 passengers, or just less than 8 percent, in comparison to last year. Northeast Corridor ridership, while increasing each year, is actually shrinking as a percentage of all Amtrak riders from a high in 2004 of more than 45 percent to an anticipated level in 2009 of less than 38 percent. The importance to Amtrak of the net revenues derived from Northeast Corridor riders, however, cannot be overstated.
Budget Request.--For fiscal year 2008, the President's budget request seeks a total of $800,000,000 in direct support for Amtrak, including $275,000,000 in efficiency incentive grants and $525,000,000 in capital grants. The amount requested is $525,000,000 less than the comparable 2008 level--a reduction of almost 40 percent. As in years past, the Committee cannot seriously consider the administration's budget request as a credible proposal since it will do nothing other than bankrupt the railroad. The Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General [OIG] performs quarterly audits on Amtrak's finances and reports the results of those audits to the Committee. During a hearing on Amtrak's finances held on April 3, 2008, witnesses from the OIG testified that they saw no way that Amtrak could avoid bankruptcy if funded at the President's requested level. While the administration has testified to their strong commitment to `reform' Amtrak, the fact remains that no such `reforms', merited or not, can occur if the railroad goes into receivership and is required to terminate all intercity passenger rail service. As such, for fiscal year 2008, the Committee has provided $1,550,000,000 in new appropriations for Amtrak's operating and capital needs. The amount provided is $225,000,000 more than the comparable level for fiscal year 2008.
OPERATING GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION
| Appropriations, 2008 | $475,000,000 |
| Budget estimate, 2009 | ........................... |
| Committee recommendation | 550,000,000 |
The Committee provides $550,000,000 for operating grants for Amtrak. The operating grant provides a subsidy to account for the difference between Amtrak's self-generated operating revenues and its total operating costs. The amount provided is $275,000,000 more than the President's request which sought such operating assistance through an efficiency incentive grant program. The amount provided is $75,000,000 more than the comparable amount provided for fiscal year 2007.
Amtrak Reform Legislation- The Senate passed the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act--a comprehensive passenger rail reauthorization bill--on October 30, 2007 by a vote of 70 to 22. The House of Representatives passed its version the bill on June 11, 2008 by a vote of 311 to 104. Included within those bills are numerous reform proposals for Amtrak and its operations. Pending the enactment of such a final comprehensive Amtrak reform bill, the Committee has included most of the legislative provisions from prior appropriations acts governing the availability of Amtrak operating subsidies through a route-by-route grant making process approved by the Secretary of Transportation.
Settlement of Wage Labor Contracts- The Committee is pleased that the lengthy period of stalemate and inaction over Amtrak's labor contracts will soon come to close. Following an 8-year period during which the vast majority of Amtrak's wage workforce did not see a meaningful wage increase, Amtrak has now reached contract agreements with all of its unions. The catalyst in reaching these settlements was the decision of the National Mediation Board to release several of Amtrak's unions from mediation and the President issuing an Executive Order on December 1, 2007 appointing an Emergency Board (PEB No. 242) to investigate and report on the long-running dispute. The Emergency Board authority called for under section 10 of the Railway Labor Act has been used several times in the past to help settle rail labor disputes including disputes involving Amtrak employees.
Following the issuance of the report of that Emergency Board on December 30, 2007, Amtrak and its unions began finalizing contracts consistent with the recommendations of the PEB. Contracts have now been ratified by all 19 of Amtrak's major unions. Consistent with the recommendations of PEB 242, the recently negotiated contracts call for Amtrak's wage workers to receive lump sum payments from the Corporation to compensate them in part for the wage increases foregone during the lengthy period covering fiscal years 2002 through 2007 when Amtrak and its workers could not reach a wage settlement. While the signed contracts call for a few of Amtrak's unions to receive these payments in one lump sum, the majority of Amtrak's workers are expected to receive these payments in two increments--known as first and second retroactive wage payments. Amtrak began making the first retroactive wage payment to workers with ratified contracts utilizing revenues available to the corporation on May 8, 2008. The second retroactive wage payment is due to Amtrak's workers not later than 1 year following their receipt of the first payment.
During its hearing on Amtrak's finances held on April 3, 2008, the Committee pursued many questions surrounding the financing of the second retroactive wage payment. Differing views were expressed between witnesses from Amtrak and the DOT Office of Inspector General [OIG] as to whether Amtrak would need an increased appropriation to accommodate the cost of the second lump sum payment in fiscal year 2009. The DOT OIG witness testified that Amtrak's revenues and improved budget position indicate that the corporation is likely to end fiscal year 2008 with a substantial cash balance--now estimated to be more than $293,000,000--that should be sufficient to cover the cost of the second retroactive wage payment. Amtrak's President and Board Chairman contested that assumption, citing the uncertainty surrounding the economy and, by extension, its potential impact on Amtrak's ridership and revenues.
The formal grant request submitted by Amtrak's Board of Directors to the Committee acknowledges the corporation's financial liability for the second retroactive wage payment but refuses to formally seek the funding from Congress. The position of the Board was articulated by its Chairman who testified to the Committee that `it's the decision of Congress on meeting those requirements.'
While the Committee believes that the Amtrak Board should submit grant requests that accurately reflect all, not just some, of the corporation's contract liabilities, the Committee has nonetheless decided to meet the requirements of the second retroactive wage payment. As such, the bill includes a provision that requires the Secretary to withhold from Amtrak the sums necessary for the payment of the second retroactive wage payment. The Secretary shall transmit those sums to the corporation for no purpose other than the payment of the second retroactive wage payments and only at such times as the payments are due.
After more than 8 years of increasingly divisive labor-management relations, the Committee hopes and expects that the resolution of this final settlement will signal a period of renewed cooperation between Amtrak labor and Amtrak management in addressing the many challenges facing the corporation.
Resources Available for Operations- The Committee is providing $550,000,000 for operating expenses for Amtrak for fiscal year 2009. The amount provided is $75,000,000 more than the amount provided for fiscal year 2007.
The Committee believes that the amount provided will be sufficient to cover Amtrak's operating losses in 2009 after funds are withheld for the costs associated with the second retroactive wage payment that will be financed under this appropriation. Amtrak has experienced stronger-than-expected ridership growth in the current year that has boosted revenues by almost $112,000,000 over the levels initially budgeted by Amtrak. Expenses (net of the costs of the initial retroactive wage payment) have also grown, however, largely as a result of higher-than-budgeted fuel costs. The combined effect of these trends indicates that Amtrak is currently operating $91,000,000 ahead of budget and is on course to end the year with a cash balance approaching $300,000,000. The DOT Inspector General has written to the Committee to communicate his view that this balance by itself should be sufficient to allow Amtrak to finance the second retroactive wage in 2009 without any increase in its operating subsidy.
The Committee recognizes that there is still uncertainty that surrounds the sustainability of Amtrak's improved financial condition. It can't be estimated at this time whether fuel prices will continue to stay at current historic highs or grow even further. And while those increased fuel costs have been a strong contributor to Amtrak's improved ticket sales, it can't be known at this time whether these dramatically higher fuel prices might eventually slow the economy to an extent that they will negatively impact Amtrak's revenues. The Committee has provided a $75,000,000 increase in Amtrak's operating subsidy to ensure a greater guarantee of stability for the corporation as it progresses through the year while funding the second retroactive wage payment. The Committee will continue to monitor Amtrak's monthly financial performance reports to assess the sustainability of Amtrak's improved performance. The Committee further understands that the corporation is currently preparing a more detailed and comprehensive budget estimate for fiscal year 2009 that will be presented to its Board of Directors in July. The Committee looks forward to reviewing Amtrak's updated estimates.
On-time Performance of Amtrak Trains- The Committee continues to be dismayed by the poor on-time performance of Amtrak's trains, especially the railroad's State-supported routes and long-distance trains that operate outside the Northeast Corridor. These trains travel over track owned and dispatched by the Nation's freight railroads. Indeed, many of these train services were operated by the freight railroads themselves until 37 years ago when the Rail Passenger Service Act allowed them to unload these money-losing operations onto the newly-created National Rail Passenger Service Corporation (Amtrak).
ON-TIME PERFORMANCE REPORT--MAY 2008 AND YEAR TO DATE
[In percent]
--------------------------------------------------
Service May 2008 Fiscal year 2009 YTD
--------------------------------------------------
Amtrak System 72.7 72.7
Amtrak Premium 83.8 84.5
Acela Express 83.8 84.5
Metroliner
Amtrak Corridor 78.0 80.7
Keystone 87.6 87.8
Regional 73.4 77.2
Short Distance 71.7 70.0
Capitols 90.7 86.7
Carolinian 33.9 44.8
Cascades 73.7 65.8
Downeaster 80.0 74.0
Empire Corridor 72.5 65.3
Heartland Flyer 61.3 51.8
Hiawatha 92.0 86.3
Hoosier State 61.8 42.3
Illinois 50.8 56.7
Michigan 26.1 29.2
Missouri 28.2 18.2
Pacific Surfliner 73.8 77.6
Pennsylvanian 95.2 89.8
Piedmont 71.0 78.2
San Joaquins 81.4 85.2
Vermonter 24.2 33.2
Long Distance 56.4 58.2
Auto Train 67.7 80.5
California Zephyr 43.5 37.3
Capitol Limited 34.4 40.2
Cardinal 44.4 38.3
City of New Orleans 58.1 73.8
Coast Starlight 85.1 69.4
Crescent 56.5 72.1
Empire Builder 75.8 69.9
Lake Shore Ltd 61.8 58.0
Palmetto 56.5 57.2
Silver Meteor 66.1 68.0
Silver Star 56.5 45.1
Southwest Chief 46.8 74.1
Sunset Limited 30.8 22.6
Texas Eagle 11.3 23.8
--------------------------------------------------
Despite the heightened attention brought to the poor on-time performance of Amtrak's off-corridor trains, there has only been marginal improvement seen over the last year. Nationwide, Amtrak's on-time performance improved from 68.9 percent in 2007 to 72.7 percent for the year to date. However, these figures include the much higher on-time performance rates on Amtrak's Northeast Corridor services and mask the much poorer performance of Amtrak trains off the Corridor. Certain Amtrak services--including State-supported services--continue to arrive at their destinations on time less than one-third of the time. Short distance trains in Vermont, Missouri, and Michigan have, for the year to date, experienced on-time arrival rates of only 33 percent, 18 percent and 29 percent respectively. Long distance services such as the California Zephyr, the Capitol Limited, and the Cardinal arrive on time less than half the time while the Sunset Limited and the Texas Eagle arrive on time less than one-quarter of the time.
In testimony before the Committee in 2007, the FRA Administrator testified that the on-time performance of Amtrak trains was `one of my top priorities outside of safety itself.' In order to monitor the Administrator's progress in addressing the problem, the Committee included a requirement in the 2008 appropriations act for the Administrator to submit quarterly reports detailing his efforts. That law states explicitly that these quarterly reports `shall compare the most recent actual on-time performance data to pre-established on-time performance goals that the Administrator shall set for each rail service, identified by route' (see sec. 151 of division K, Public Law 110-161). To the Committee's dismay, the Administrator's first quarterly report was submitted woefully late and lacked the route-by-route goal and performance data that was required under the law. The Committee expects that Administrator's next submission to comply fully with the law. Moreover, as the Committee has done previously with reports from DOT that are not submitted by their statutory deadline, a provision has been added to the bill that reduces the funds available to the Office of the Secretary by $100,000 for each day that the report is submitted beyond its statutory due date.
The first quarterly report, as submitted by the Administrator, states that `even without regulatory authority over [on-time performance], the FRA can leverage its Federal leadership role and its grant-making capabilities to support improved reliability of intercity passenger trains over host freight railroads.' Since the Administrator agrees that he has some of the tools necessary to seriously address the OTP problem, the Committee expects him to use them and show measurable results in the near future.
The Committee commends the Secretary for using a recent meeting with the chief executives of the major Class I railroads to charge them with identifying one Amtrak route operating on their territory and developing an action plan for removing delays and improving on-time performance on that route. Such plans were expected to be developed in partnership with Amtrak and the FRA. To date, the following routes have been identified for this initiative:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Railroad Route
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Transportation Interstate 95 Corridor (continued implementation of the FRA-mandated plan of 2007)
Norfolk Southern Chicago, IL to Porter, IN, to Cleveland, OH
BNSF Railway Chicago, IL to Denver, CO (California Zephyr)
Canadian National Railway Chicago to Carbondale, IL
Canadian Pacific Railway New York City, NY--Albany, NY--Montreal, CA (Adirondack)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee understands that the Union Pacific and Amtrak have yet to reach an agreement on the appropriate route or segment to be included as part of this initiative.
The Committee hopes that, in focusing on just one route per railroad, the Secretary and the Administrator have not lost sight of the need to improve the on-time performance of the entire Amtrak network in the near term. The Committee hopes that the Secretary's initiative is intended as the precursor to a larger systemwide effort and not a short-lived exercise in `picking the low hanging fruit.'
The Committee believes that the administration should view an aggressive effort to improve Amtrak's on-time performance as wholly consistent with its vision for the future of rail passenger service. The administration has always bristled at the cost of Amtrak's operating subsidies and requested serious cuts or the elimination of such subsidies every year. Just this past March, the DOT Inspector General reported that improving the on-time performance of Amtrak's trains could have a dramatic impact in reducing Amtrak's needs for such operating subsidies. According to the IG, improving the performance of Amtrak's off-corridor trains to 85 percent on-time in 2006 would have reduced Amtrak's operating loss by 30 percent or more than $135,000,000.
The administration has also taken the position that expanded financial participation by the States must be central part of any effort to expand Amtrak's network. Yet, as you review the current on-time performance of Amtrak's many trains, some of the most unreliable services with the worst on-time performance are those that have been jointly funded by the States. Such examples include State-supported trains in Michigan, Missouri, and Vermont.
It's hard to fathom how Amtrak can succeed in answering the administration's challenge and entice the expanded financial participation of the States if new State-supported services are likely to be burdened with the same pathetically poor on-time performance as the current State-supported services.
The administration should also rise to the challenge of forcefully improving Amtrak's on-time performance because, at present, national rail policy on this topic is being made not by the Secretary or the Administrator, but rather by railroad executives and train dispatchers spread around the country. With the passage of the Rail Passenger Service Act in October 1970, the Nation's freight railroads were allowed to pass the costs of their money-losing passenger services on to the newly created national passenger railroad--Amtrak. However, that law also required Amtrak trains operating over freight-owned track to be granted `preference over freight transportation in using a rail line, junction, or crossing.' When the Committee asked the FRA Administrator in 2007 whether the freight railroads were uniformly complying with both the letter and spirit of this law, the Administrator testified that `I don't think there's uniformity in terms of the importance of this among the Class I railroads.' More recently, the DOT Inspector General conducted an audit of the freight railroads' dispatching practices when it comes to granting the statutory preference to Amtrak trains. The IG representative testified to the Committee that `by their practices, (the freight railroads) are in fact defining Amtrak's preference rights since they control the dispatching.'
The Committee finds the status quo as articulated by the Inspector General's office to be unacceptable and believes the administration should as well. Surely, the definition of a central element of the Rail Passenger Services Act should be determined by appropriately elected and appointed officials and not by the managers and dispatchers of individual freight railroads. These differences in dispatching practices are certainly a contributing factor to the differing performance by the individual freight railroads in delivering Amtrak trains on time; as displayed below:
Taxpayer-subsidized Offshoring of Amtrak Jobs- As part of the development of the appropriations bill providing funding for Amtrak for fiscal year 2007, the Committee included a provision that would immediately terminate Federal funding for Amtrak should the corporation contract for services to be performed overseas that had been provided domestically on or before July 1, 2006. The necessity for this provision was brought about by the Amtrak Board of Directors giving consideration to moving some of Amtrak's reservation customer service functions overseas. In the wake of the Committee's response last year, Amtrak abandoned its plan. The Committee still considers it unconscionable that the Nation's taxpayer-subsidized national railroad might consider moving jobs overseas. And while the Committee is not aware of any similar proposals being considered by the Amtrak Board, the Committee has included a permanent provision terminating Federal subsidies in the wake of any such action (Sec. 150).
Food and Beverage Service- The Committee continues to be supportive of Amtrak's efforts to reduce its operating loses stemming from food and beverage service. The forecasted loss for 2007 is expected to be almost 25 percent below the actual loss experienced in 2005. The Committee expects Amtrak to continue to make efforts to reduce this loss while simultaneously working to improve customer satisfaction. The DOT Inspector General is encouraged to continue to monitor these efforts.
EFFICIENCY INCENTIVE GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORTATION
(RESCISSION)
| Appropriations, 2008 | ........................... |
| Budget estimate, 2008 | $275,000,000 |
| Committee recommendation (rescission) | -46,800,000 |
The Committee has not included new budget authority for efficiency incentive grants to the national railroad passenger corporation. The President's budget requested $275,000,000 for this purpose in lieu of requesting any funding for Amtrak's operating losses. The Committee has continued to meet the Amtrak needs through funding made available for operating needs of the Operating Grants appropriation.
The Committee is also recommending of rescission of $46,800,000 from funds made available for efficiency incentive grants in fiscal years 2006 and 2007. Such funds are being rescinded to help offset the costs of Amtrak's operations appropriation including the costs associated with the second retroactive wage payment due to Amtrak's workers in fiscal year 2009. In testimony before the Committee, Amtrak's Board Chairman indicated that these funds would be an appropriate offset for these costs. In written communication to the Senate, Amtrak's President also signaled that these funds would be `extremely helpful' in assisting the corporation in meeting the costs of these payments.
CAPITAL AND DEBT SERVICE GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION
| Appropriations, 2008 | $850,000,000 |
| Budget estimate, 2009 | 525,000,000 |
| Committee recommendation | 1,000,000,000 |
The Committee recommends $1,000,000,000 for capital and debt service grants for Amtrak. Of this amount, not more than $285,000,000 shall be available for debt service payments. The amount provided is $150,000,000 more than the comparable 2007 appropriation and $475,000,000 more than the President's request.
Amtrak capital expenses are dedicated to maintaining Amtrak's capital plant in a state of good repair, keeping aging equipment in safe working order, and overhauling rolling stock to minimize equipment failures. The lion's share of Amtrak's annual capital grant goes toward maintaining the Northeast Corridor due to the railroad's sole ownership of the majority of that corridor. As in the case of Amtrak operating expenses, the Committee has included most of the legislative provisions from prior appropriations acts governing the availability of Amtrak capital grants through a route-by-route grant making process approved by the Secretary of Transportation. Such language may become unnecessary should the Congress enact a comprehensive Amtrak reform bill through the normal legislative process.
Fire and Life Safety Improvements- The Committee has provided an increase of $150,000,000 for Amtrak's capital needs. While the Committee does not wish to earmark funding for specific projects under this appropriation, the Committee notes that the grant request submitted by the Amtrak Board envisions an increase in spending from the capital grant program for fire and life safety improvements along the Northeast Corridor of almost $35,000,000. Given the number of Amtrak passengers that utilize the Northeast Corridor infrastructure and the critical vulnerabilities that must be addressed along the corridor, the Committee believes that these improvements should be a very high priority for the Amtrak Board as it establishes its capital spending plan for fiscal year 2009.
Coordination With Intercity Passenger Rail Assistance to States- For the second consecutive year, the Committee has funded the new Capital Assistance to States program for intercity passenger rail services. This new program presents an important opportunity for Amtrak to benefit from State and FRA expenditures to expand or improve passenger rail service. The competitive program funded by the Committee places a priority on grant applications that include matching contributions from host freight railroads. Matching funds from Amtrak would also boost the competitiveness of State applications. In order to maximize coordination with the States and the benefits that these State expenditures might bring to Amtrak, the Committee encourages Amtrak to work with States applicants to coordinate, wherever possible, Amtrak's own capital expenditures with those of State partners, especially in instances where such expenditures hold promise to improve the on-time performance of Amtrak's services outside the Northeast Corridor.
Amtrak Fleet Plan- The positive net revenues that Amtrak derives from its Northeast Corridor operations are as central to the corporation's continued solvency as the subsidies provided by the Committee. Yet the `Amfleet' cars that have operated over the corridor are now more than 30 years old and will soon require replacement. Demand for expanded Amtrak services off of the corridor continues to grow. Yet Amtrak is ill-suited to provide that service, even where States are willing to subsidize it, because of a desperate shortage of available rail cars. While Amtrak has a number of damaged railcars available for repair, the corporation must balance the costs of such repairs against the capital expenditures necessary just to maintain current operations. Amtrak is clearly in need of a comprehensive plan for the management, maintenance and replacement of its rolling stock. As such, the Committee has included a provision in the bill requiring Amtrak to submit a comprehensive fleet plan that addresses these issues. The fleet plan will be required to be submitted at the same time Amtrak submits its comprehensive business plan. Current law already requires the business plan to be submitted to the Committee not later than 90 days following enactment of the annual Appropriations Act.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 150 permanently prohibits funds for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation from being available if the Corporation contracts for services at or from any location outside of the United States which were, as of July 1, 2006, performed by a full-time or part-time Amtrak employee within the United States.
Section 151 requires the Federal Railroad Administrator to submit quarterly reports to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on Amtrak on-time performance.
Section 152 allows DOT to purchase promotional items of nominal value for use in certain outreach activities.
Section 153 allows the Secretary to receive and use cash or spare parts to repair and replace damaged track inspection cars.
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
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 and rural transportation services needed for economical and desirable development; to provide mobility for transit dependents in both metropolitan and rural areas; to maximize the productivity and efficiency of transportation systems; and to provide assistance to State and local governments and their instrumentalities in financing such services and systems.
The current authorization for transit programs is contained in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users [SAFETEA-LU].
The following table summarizes the Committee's recommendations compared to the fiscal year 2008 enacted level and the administration's request excluding rescissions:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Fiscal year-- Committee recommendation
2008 enacted 2009 estimate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses $89,300,000 $94,413,000 $93,000,000
Formula and bus grants 7,767,887,062 8,360,565,000 8,260,565,000
Research and University Research Centers 65,362,900 59,600,000 63,000,000
Capital investment grants 1,569,091,997 1,620,828,893 1,809,250,000
Total 9,491,641,959 10,135,406,893 10,225,815,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
| Appropriations, 2008 | $89,300,000 |
| Budget estimate, 2009 | 94,413,000 |
| Committee recommendation | 93,000,000 |
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Administrative expenses funds personnel, contract resources, information technology, space management, travel, training, and other administrative expenses necessary to carry out its mission to promote public transportation systems.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a total of $93,000,000 for the agency's salaries and administrative expenses. The recommended level of funding is $1,413,000 less than the budget request and $3,700,000 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. the bill limits travel expenses to $1,539,000, and it limits the central account to $23,322,000.
The Committee recommendation includes language authorizing the Administrator to transfer funding between offices. Any transfers totaling more than 5 percent of the initial appropriation from this account must be approved by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations through the usual reprogramming process.
Project Management Oversight Activities.--The Committee directs FTA to continue to submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations the quarterly FMO and PMO reports for each project with a full funding grant agreement.
To further support oversight activities, the bill continues a provision requiring FTA to transfer $2,000,000 to the DOT Office of Inspector General [OIG] for costs associated with audits and investigations of transit-related issues, including reviews of new fixed guideway systems. This transfer must come from funds available for the execution of contracts. Over the past several years, the OIG has provided critical oversight of a number transit projects and FTA activities, which the Committee has found invaluable. The Committee anticipates that the Inspector General will continue such activities in fiscal year 2009.
Full Funding Grant Agreements [FFGAs].--TEA-21, as amended, requires that FTA notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, as well as the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Banking, 60 days before executing a full funding grant agreement. In its notification to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the Committee directs FTA to submit the following information: (1) a copy of the proposed full funding grant agreement; (2) the total and annual Federal appropriations required for the project; (3) the yearly and total Federal appropriations that can be planned or anticipated for future FFGAs for each fiscal year through 2011; (4) a detailed analysis of annual commitments for current and anticipated FFGAs against the program authorization, by individual project; (5) an evaluation of whether the alternatives analysis made by the applicant fully assessed all the viable alternatives; (6) a financial analysis of the project's cost and sponsor's ability to finance the project, which shall be conducted by an independent examiner and which shall include an assessment of the capital cost estimate and finance plan; (7) the source and security of all public and private sector financing; (8) the project's operating plan, which enumerates the project's future revenue and ridership forecasts; and (9) a listing of all planned contingencies and possible risks associated with the project.
The Committee also directs FTA to inform the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in writing 30 days before approving schedule, scope, or budget changes to any full funding grant agreement. Correspondence relating to all changes shall include any budget revisions or program changes that materially alter the project as originally stipulated in the FFGA, including any proposed change in rail car procurement.
The Committee directs FTA to continue to provide a monthly new start project update to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, detailing the status of each project. This update should include FTA's plans and specific milestone schedules for advancing projects, especially those within 2 years of a proposed full funding grant agreement. In addition, FTA should notify the Committees 10 days before any project in the new starts process is given approval by FTA to advance to preliminary engineering or final design.
FORMULA AND BUS GRANTS
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORITY)
(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
(INCLUDING RESCISSION)
----------------------------------------
Trust fund
----------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2008 $7,767,887,062
Budget estimate, 2009 8,360,565,000
Committee recommendation 8,260,565,000
----------------------------------------
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The Formula and Bus Grants account includes funding for the following programs: urbanized area formula grants; clean fuels formula grants; formula grants for special needs of elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities; formula grants for non-urbanized areas; job access and reverse commute grants; new freedom grants; growing States and high density States grants; bus and bus facility grants; rail modernization grants; alternatives analysis; alternative transportation in parks and public lands; and the national transit database. In addition, set-asides from formula funds are directed to a grant program for intercity bus operators to finance Americans with Disabilities Act accessibility costs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends limiting obligations in the transit formula and bus grants account in fiscal year 2009 to $8,260,565,000. The recommendation is $492,677,938 more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted level. The Committee also recommends $8,670,000,000 in authority to liquidate contract authorizations, an amount sufficient to cover outstanding obligations from this account.
The Committee recommendation maintains the set-aside for project oversight in current law instead of providing an increase for program management of formula funds, as requested.
The following table displays the distribution of obligation limitation among the program categories of formula and bus grants:
DISTRIBUTION OF OBLIGATION LIMITATION AMONG MAJOR CATEGORIES OF FORMULA AND BUS GRANTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Program category Amount
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Clean Fuels Program $51,500,000
Urbanized Area Formula 1 4,552,280,553
Over-the-road Bus Program 8,800,000
Elderly and Persons with Disabilities 133,500,000
Nonurbanized Area Formula 1 ÿ 538,084,447
Bus and Bus Facility (includes clean fuels) 884,000,000
Fixed Guideway Modernization 1,666,500,000
Job Access and Reverse Commute 164,500,000
New Freedom 92,500,000
National Transit Database 3,500,000
Planning Programs 113,500,000
Alternatives Analysis 25,000,000
Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands 26,900,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The following table displays the State-by-State distribution of funds for several of the major program categories in the formula and bus grants account (these distributions are calculated using the formulas set in SAFETEA-LU, the most recent authorization law for transit programs):
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINSITRATION ESTIMATED FISCAL YEAR 2009 APPORTIONMENTS FOR FORMULA GRANTS PROGRAMS (BY STATE)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Section 5307 and 5340 urbanized area Section 5311 and 5340 non-urbanized area Section 5310 special needs for elderly and individuals with disabilities Job access and reverse commute New freedom State total
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama $20,296,442 $13,191,443 $2,316,728 $2,879,269 $1,580,716 $40,264,597
Alaska 25,942,978 6,044,600 298,338 249,848 133,248 32,669,011
Arizona 60,901,486 9,409,106 2,421,844 3,186,127 1,613,609 77,532,172
Arkansas 9,976,987 10,063,051 1,485,312 1,693,187 924,977 24,143,514
California 734,520,308 23,149,055 14,201,973 23,567,408 11,695,490 807,134,234
Colorado 59,519,921 8,339,835 1,680,952 2,011,568 1,243,083 72,795,360
Connecticut 74,908,400 2,720,694 1,633,799 1,355,919 1,127,343 81,746,155
Delaware 11,392,583 1,260,415 467,748 317,788 231,164 13,669,698
District of Columbia 84,533,477 401,674 456,545 223,556 85,615,252
Florida 214,255,791 13,665,804 9,054,548 9,984,723 6,505,029 253,465,895
Georgia 84,498,944 17,043,811 3,388,163 4,486,717 2,513,664 111,931,299
Hawaii 31,536,227 1,977,060 652,887 549,587 354,739 35,070,500
Idaho 7,324,777 5,802,408 622,251 757,544 379,945 14,886,924
Illinois 268,894,909 14,176,509 5,238,179 6,071,487 3,691,937 298,073,021
Indiana 46,239,840 13,565,559 2,750,575 2,774,069 1,862,130 67,192,173
Iowa 17,406,124 10,085,925 1,411,636 1,245,522 757,073 30,906,280
Kansas 12,604,053 9,358,468 1,263,995 1,116,971 688,090 25,031,578
Kentucky 22,895,630 12,794,452 2,134,698 2,220,396 1,282,835 41,328,011
Louisiana 37,011,598 10,263,425 2,125,248 3,478,198 1,598,377 54,476,845
Maine 4,390,901 5,450,554 738,482 608,059 403,410 11,591,406
Maryland 116,691,757 5,014,908 2,260,435 2,136,201 1,662,607 127,765,908
Massachusetts 197,198,340 3,494,764 3,005,985 2,799,891 2,108,240 208,607,219
Michigan 84,522,014 17,346,380 4,355,117 4,791,256 3,146,204 114,160,970
Minnesota 54,718,451 12,738,937 1,990,631 1,702,860 1,119,362 72,270,241
Mississippi 6,529,543 11,514,715 1,489,595 1,755,085 814,978 22,103,916
Missouri 46,854,685 13,795,458 2,626,238 2,689,161 1,582,543 67,548,085
Montana 3,416,567 7,487,307 515,089 549,402 253,731 12,222,096
Nebraska 10,110,453 6,541,409 833,830 676,232 371,742 18,533,666
Nevada 27,409,647 4,905,231 1,022,392 1,032,410 693,529 35,063,210
New Hampshire 6,194,324 3,525,899 625,384 424,371 387,861 11,157,839
New Jersey 322,916,098 3,264,005 3,827,337 3,418,004 2,677,319 336,102,763
New Mexico 11,583,543 8,155,173 922,070 1,318,079 567,213 22,546,077
New York 724,884,147 17,530,743 9,093,992 11,751,939 6,640,776 769,901,597
North Carolina 50,405,452 21,921,524 3,791,181 4,040,386 2,561,858 82,720,401
North Dakota 3,954,018 3,947,922 404,204 350,871 187,613 8,844,628
Ohio 109,902,727 19,951,877 5,095,271 5,328,123 3,363,088 143,641,086
Oklahoma 17,158,479 11,267,408 1,753,695 1,957,799 1,008,090 33,145,471
Oregon 45,889,090 9,755,664 1,624,581 1,767,450 978,972 60,015,757
Pennsylvania 188,087,472 20,183,865 6,017,165 6,048,012 3,790,923 224,127,436
Rhode Island 20,306,948 588,250 633,128 562,119 362,907 22,453,351
South Carolina 19,462,121 11,019,109 2,016,570 2,254,389 1,371,615 36,123,805
South Dakota 3,105,634 4,888,347 447,170 376,568 196,839 9,014,558
Tennessee 35,872,944 14,055,492 2,815,688 3,215,451 1,918,824 57,878,398
Texas 249,475,484 33,742,068 8,422,652 14,959,249 6,746,650 313,346,103
Utah 36,539,059 4,779,865 827,533 1,072,095 547,165 43,765,716
Vermont 1,823,452 2,636,628 379,702 225,023 141,005 5,205,810
Virginia 68,709,737 12,445,674 2,970,333 3,074,340 2,032,950 89,233,034
Washington 120,370,224 9,532,254 2,524,195 2,985,645 1,925,130 137,337,448
West Virginia 6,585,761 6,714,801 1,116,184 1,275,226 708,504 16,400,476
Wisconsin 50,593,755 13,448,469 2,303,921 2,272,753 1,498,861 70,117,759
Wyoming 1,738,736 4,627,828 322,017 243,656 136,074 7,068,311
America Samoa 226,515 65,166 98,972 8,925 399,578
Guam 612,261 173,448 99,105 26,039 910,853
N. Mariana Islands 803,902 34,875 66,533 151,666 29,856 1,086,832
Puerto Rico 47,239,640 1,401,654 2,041,295 7,985,779 2,103,599 60,771,967
Virgin Islands 972,234 163,743 99,501 17,993 1,253,471
Subtotal 4,521,077,815 511,459,447 132,832,500 164,500,000 92,500,000 5,422,369,762
Oversight 31,202,738 2,325,000 667,500 34,195,238
Total 4,552,280,553 513,784,447 133,500,000 164,500,000 92,500,000 5,456,565,000
Tribal Transit Program 15,000,000 15,000,000
RTAP 9,300,000 9,300,000
Grand Total 4,552,280,553 538,084,447 133,500,000 164,500,000 92,500,000 5,480,865,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Springfield Union Station, Massachusetts- The Committee continues to be supportive of the construction of a new, affordable facility in the city of Springfield, Massachusetts. Considerable funds already appropriated for this project from as far back as 2002 remain unobligated, and still other funds provided for the project in authorization acts also remain unobligated. However, the Committee is encouraged that State and local leadership are close to finalizing a new scope and design for the facility. The Committee asks that the Federal Transit Administration continue to work with State and local leaders to develop a reasonable schedule for the new project so that all appropriated funds can be obligated promptly.
West Virginia Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities- Consistent with the provisions of section 3044 of SAFETEA-LU, the bill includes a total of $10,417,280 for bus and bus facilities within the State of West Virginia for fiscal year 2009.
Within the funding available to the bus and bus facilities program, funds are to be made available to the following projects and activities:
BUS AND BUS FACILITIES
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project name Committee recommendation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abilene Paratransit Vehicle Replacement, TX $480,000
Addison County Transit Resources Facilities, Buses, and Equipment, VT 1,000,000
Alabama Senior Transportation Program, AL 1,000,000
Albuquerque Transit Facility Rehabilitation, City of Albuquerque, NM 150,000
Athens-Clarke County Transit, Bus Procurement, GA 1,400,000
Automotive-Based Fuel Cell Hybrid Bus Program, DE 500,000
Baldwin County Bus and Bus Facilities Project, AL 1,000,000
Ben Franklin Transit Maintenance Facility Construction, WA 1,350,000
Bloomfield Intermodal Improvements, NJ 2,000,000
Bridgeport Intermodal Transportation Center, CT 3,000,000
Capital Metro Bus and Bus Facilities Improvements, TX 500,000
CATA Bus and Bus Facilities, Lansing, MI 2,000,000
Cedar Avenue Bus Rapid Transit, MN 1,000,000
Central City Intermodal Transfer Terminal, NV 1,000,000
City of Detroit Fare Collection System, Bus Upgrades, MI 1,000,000
City of Moultrie Intermodal Facility, GA 500,000
Clallam Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA 302,000
Deerfield Valley Transit Association Buses, Facilities, and Equipment, VT 2,000,000
Design and Construction of an Intermodal Transportation Center for Los Lunas, NM 1,000,000
Dubuque Downtown Transportation Center Intermodal Facility, Dubuque, IA 250,000
East Tennessee Human Resources Agency Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles, TN 1,000,000
Enumclaw Welcome Center Intermodal Transit Facility, WA 1,500,000
Everett Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA 1,000,000
Frankfort Transit, KY 1,000,000
Goldsboro Union Depot, NC 500,000
Grant Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA 448,000
Greater Minnesota Transit Capital, MN 3,000,000
Greater Richmond Transit Company [GRTC] Bus Replacement, VA 1,000,000
Greensboro Multimodal Facility, NC 1,000,000
Harrison County Multi-Modal Facilities, MS 3,000,000
HART Bus Rapid Transit Project, FL 2,000,000
Hillsboro Intermodal Transit Facility, OR 3,000,000
Idaho Transit Coalition Buses and Bus Facilities, ID 2,500,000
Intercity Transit Intermodal Facility Project, WA 1,850,000
Intermodal Facilities, Salt Lake City, UT 5,000,000
JATRAN Light Rail Feasibility Study, MS 500,000
Lafayette Hybrid Bus Project, IN 2,100,000
Lake Tahoe Bus Facilities, NV 500,000
Lakewood Multi Modal Facility, NJ 1,000,000
Laredo Bus Maintenance Facility and Refueling Depot, TX 1,000,000
Lufkin VA Clinic Shuttle, TX 300,000
LYNX Buses, Orlando, FL 3,000,000
Marshall County Vehicle Replacement for Seniors and for the Mentally Disabled, AL 300,000
MARTA Clean Fuel Buses and Facilities, GA 1,400,000
Murray-Calloway County Transit Authority Expansion Project, KY 1,200,000
ND Statewide Transit, ND 2,000,000
Nevada Statewide Bus Facilities 500,000
Oklahoma City Bus Replacement, OK 1,400,000
Pacific Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA 480,000
Paducah Area Transit System, KY 2,500,000
Pierce Transit Peninsula Park and Ride, WA 1,775,000
Pullman Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA 1,356,000
Queen Street Station, PA 3,000,000
Reno/Sparks Intermodal Transportation Center developments, NV 500,000
Rural Bus Program for Hawaii, Maui, and Kauai, HI 2,000,000
Senior Transportation, RI 200,000
Southside Bus Facility Replacement in Hampton Roads, VA 2,000,000
St. Louis Metro Bus and Paratransit Rolling Stock Project, MO 4,000,000
State of Illinois downstate bus and bus facilities, IL 5,000,000
Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, MD 2,000,000
Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, MO 2,000,000
Statewide Bus and Bus Facility Enhancements, AK 600,000
Statewide Bus Replacement, RI 1,000,000
Townsend Great Smoky Mountain Heritage Bus Station, TN 1,000,000
Transit Authority of Lexington Bus Purchase Project, KY 3,100,000
Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky Buses, KY 1,500,000
Transit Bus and Bus Replacement, IA 4,000,000
Transit Maintenance and Operations Facility, City of Las Cruces, NM 1,000,000
Treasure Valley Transit Facilities, ID 500,000
Twin Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA 410,000
University of Alabama Bus and Bus Facility Project, AL 500,000
Valley Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA 388,000
Whatcom County Transit Vehicle Replacement, WA 2,000,000
Wisconsin Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, WI 4,000,000
Wonderland Intermodal Transit Improvements, MA 1,000,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within the funding available to the alternatives analysis program, funds are to be made available to the following projects and activities:
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project name Committee recommendation
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aberdeen MARC Rail Storage Yard, MD $500,000
Coast Transit Alternatives Analysis, MS 1,200,000
MARTA I-20 East Transit Corridor, GA 500,000
Northwest New Jersey--Northeast Pennsylvania Passenger Rail Project, PA 1,000,000