Order Code IB10032
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Transportation Issues in the 107th Congress
Updated January 23, 2001
Glennon J. Harrison, Coordinator
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
Budget
Transportation Budgeting
Department of Transportation Appropriations
Aviation
FAA’s Airport Improvement Program (AIP)
Aviation Delays
Airline Consumer Protection Legislation
Airline Mergers
The European Union Hushkit Dispute
The Airbus A380 Trade Dispute
Surface Transportation
Oversight of the Traffic Safety Grant Provisions of TEA21
Oversight of the Environmental Provisions of TEA21
Traffic Congestion
Amtrak Funding
Amtrak Oversight
Railroad Safety Reauthorization
Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety
Pipeline Safety
Firestone Tire Recall
Child Safety Seats
Hours-of-Service Regulations for Commercial Drivers
Maritime
Harbor Maintenance User Fees
Reauthorizing the Coast Guard
FOR ADDITIONAL READING

---

IB10032
01-23-01
Transportation Issues in the 107th Congress
SUMMARY
This issue brief identifies key transporta-
Traffic Congestion is worsening in many
tion issues facing the 107th Congress.
urbanized areas. In the 107th Congress, federal
transportation policies may be examined to
Transportation Budgeting. Spending for
explore possible solutions this problem.
highway and transit programs is linked directly
to revenue collected, and the Wendell H. Ford
Amtrak funding will be reviewed early in the
Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the
107th Congress to reconsider a $10 billion
21st Century (FAIR21 or AIR21) guarantees
bond proposal that failed to be passed in the
funding for certain FAA programs. DOT
closing days of the 106th Congress. Amtrak
Appropriations for FY2001 provide nearly
reform is on the agenda as Amtrak attempts
$58 billion for DOT, an increase of more than
meet a statutory requirement that it cover its
14% over FY2000.
operating expenses out of its own revenues by
the end of FY2002 or go out of business.
The Airport Improvement Program was
reauthorized through FY2003 by the 106th
Rail Safety programs have not been reauthor-
Congress. Aviation Delays are at record
ized since they expired at the end of FY1998.
levels with little relief in site. Airline
Hazardous Materials Transportation Safe-
Consumer Protection issues stem from the
ty was not reauthorized during the 106th
growing dissatisfaction expressed by airline
Congress. Pipeline Safety measures may
consumers in the press and to Congress.
again be considered during the 107th Congress.
Airline Mergers. The United-USAirways
merger has heightened congressional interest
in airline industry concentration.
Firestone Tire Recall and Child Safety Seats
will spur congressional review of NHTSA’s
European Hushkit Dispute. A ban on newly
efforts to implement the TREAD Act passed
hushkitted aircraft into European airline fleets
by the 106th Congress.
risks U.S. retaliation. The Airbus 380 trade
dispute once again raises the issue of
Proposed Revision of Hours-of-Service
European subsidies for aircraft projects that
Rules will be reviewed by the 107th Congress.
compete directly against non-subsidized U.S.
products.
Harbor Maintenance User Fees. The 107th
Congress may consider whether to create a
TEA21 Traffic Safety Grants. Interest
fee-based system to pay for harbor mainte-
centers on how effectively agencies are
nance or use the General Fund.
implementing TEA21 traffic safety grant
programs.
Coast Guard Reauthorization. Major issues
include replacing aging vessels and addressing
Oversight of the Environmental Provisions
expanded operational responsibilities.
of TEA21. Oversight of environmental
streamlining provisions of TEA21 will
continue into the 107th Congress.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10032
01-23-01

MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On October 6, 2000, the House and Senate approved the conference report on H.R.
4475, the FY2001 Department of Transportation Appropriations bill, sending the measure
to the President. President Clinton signed the FY2001 Department of Transportation (DOT)
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-346; H.Rept. 106-940) on October 23,
2000. The agreement provides $57.978 billion for DOT. This amount is an increase of
almost $8 billion over (or 14%) the enacted FY2000 level. The Act provides increases for
all major DOT agencies except the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). This
appropriation or funding level is $4 billion more than the Clinton Administration’s request
and about $3 billion more than either the House or Senate approved in their original
transportation spending bills.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
This issue brief provides an overview of key issues on the transportation agenda of the
107th Congress. The issues are organized under the headings of budget, aviation, surface
transportation, and maritime, with the author of each issue identified. Relevant Congressional
Research Service (CRS) reports are cited in the text. Consult the CRS Home Page
[http://lcweb.loc.gov/crs/] or the Guide to CRS Products, or call CRS on (202) 707-5700 to
obtain the cited reports or identify materials in other subject areas.
Budget
Transportation Budgeting
During the 105th and 106th Congresses, major legislation changed the relationships
between the largest transportation trust funds and the federal budget. The Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) (P.L. 105-178) linked spending for highway
programs directly to revenue collections for the highway trust fund. In addition, core
highway and mass transit program funding has been given special status in the discretionary
portion of the federal budget by virtue of the creation of two new budget categories. The Act
thereby creates a virtual “firewall” around highway and mass transportation spending
programs.
Of the total 6-year TEA21 authorization during FY1998 through FY2003, $198.0 billion
is guaranteed. These funds are not subject to reduction as part of the annual bud-
get/appropriations process. Additional funds provided annually by a mechanism called
“Revenue Aligned Budget Authority” (RABA) are also guaranteed by this process. (RABA
funds accrue to the trust fund as a result of increased fuel tax revenues.) The funding
CRS-1

---

IB10032
01-23-01
guarantees are set up in a way that makes it difficult for funding levels to be altered as part
of the annual budget/appropriations process.
The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (FAIR21
or AIR21)(P.L. 106-181) provides a so-called “guarantee” for Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) program spending. The guarantee for aviation spending, however, is
significantly different from that provided by TEA21. Instead of creating new budget
categories, the FAIR21 guarantee rests on adoption of two point-of-order rules for the House
and the Senate. The first point-of-order prevents Congress from considering any legislation
that does not spend all of the “total budget resources” as defined by the Act, for aviation
purposes. Total budget resources for the purposes of the Act are essentially the revenues and
interest accruing to the aviation trust fund. The second point-of-order prevents any spending
for FAA Operations and Maintenance (O&M) or Research, Engineering, and Development
(RE&D), unless the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) and the Facilities and Equipment
(F&E) portions of the FAA account are funded at their fully authorized levels.
Supporters of FAIR21 believe the new law requires significant new spending on aviation
programs; and, for at least the FY2001 appropriations cycle, new spending was significantly
higher. Almost all observers view the FAIR21 guarantees, however, as being somewhat
weaker than those provided by TEA21. Congress can, and sometimes does, waive points-of-
order during consideration of legislation. In addition, there is a sense that appropriators might
still have some latitude to make significant changes to FAA O&M funding which is dependent
on both trust fund and general fund contributions. For FY2001, supporters of FAIR21 had
the assurances of House leadership that no point-of-order waivers would be considered. No
such assurances exist as yet for the 107th Congress.
Enactment of TEA21 and FAIR21 means that transportation appropriators have total
control over spending for the Coast Guard, the Federal Railroad Administration (including
Amtrak), and a number of smaller DOT agencies. All of these agencies are concerned about
their funding prospects in a constrained budgetary environment. In FY2001, additional funds
for transportation provided as a result of the budget surplus largely negated these concerns.
Any future constraint on the congressional budget, however, is likely to rekindle these
concerns. For more information, see CRS Report 98-749E, The Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century (TEA21) and the Federal Budget and CRS Report RS20177. Airport and
Airway Trust Fund Issues in the 106th Congress. (CRS contact: John Fischer)
Department of Transportation Appropriations
Appropriations for the Department of Transportation (DOT) (Function 400 in the federal
budget) provide funding to a variety of programs that include regulatory, safety, research, and
construction activities.
Money for over half of DOT programs comes from highway fuel taxes, which are
credited to the highway trust fund. In turn, the trust fund supports two accounts: the federal-
aid highway account and the mass transit account. Aviation programs are also supported, in
part, by fuel taxes but rely more heavily on other user fees such as the airline ticket tax. The
DOT annual appropriations also include significant monies from Treasury general-fund
revenues.
CRS-2

---

IB10032
01-23-01
The FY2001 Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-346) provided $57.978 billion for DOT. This
is an increase of more than 14% over the amount provided for FY2000. The appropriations
debate for FY2001 was less contentious than for FY2000. It can be argued that this is a direct
result of a less constrained budgetary environment. For FY2002, it is uncertain whether this
will again be the case. Table 2 shows, for selected agencies and offices that receive funding
under the DOT appropriations act each year, enacted amounts for FY2001. The table will be
updated as FY2002 budget actions occur.
Table 2. Department of Transportation Appropriations
(for selected agencies, in millions)
Agency
Enacted
Requested
House
Senate
Conf.
FY2001
FY2002
Passed
Passed
Report
Federal Highway Administration
33,477
--
--
--
--
Federal Aviation Administration
12,588
--
--
--
--
Federal Transit Administration
6,271
--
--
--
--
United States Coast Guard
4,519
--
--
--
--
Federal Railroad Administration
726
--
--
--
--
National Highway Traffic Safety
404
--
--
--
--
Administration
Office of the Secretary
87
--
--
--
--
National Transportation Safety Board
63
--
--
--
--
Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
48
--
--
--
--
Surface Transportation Board (STB)
18
--
--
--
--
Source: Figures in Table 2 are drawn from tables provided by the House Committee on
Appropriations. Some figures include offsetting collections.
For more information see CRS Report RL300508, Appropriations for FY2001:
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies. (CRS contact: Bob Kirk)
Aviation
FAA’s Airport Improvement Program (AIP)
The Airport Improvement Program (AIP) provides federal grants for airport
development and planning. AIP grants are usually spent on capital projects that support
airport operations including runways, taxiways, aprons, and noise abatement.
The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century
(FAIR21) (P.L. 106-181) substantially increases the federal support for airport capital
spending. From a funding level of approximately $1.9 billion for FY2000, the authorization
increases funding by nearly 70% to $3.2 billion for FY2001, $3.3 billion for FY2002, and
$3.4 billion for FY2003. The FY2001 DOT Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-346) provided $3.2
billion for AIP and is, therefore, in conformance with FAIR21. FAIR21 also raised the cap
on the passenger facility charge (PFC) from $3 to $4.50. Meant to provide a source of funds
that would complement AIP grants, the PFC is a local tax on each boarding passenger that
may be levied by an airport with FAA approval. The combination of a nearly 70% increase
CRS-3

---

IB10032
01-23-01
in AIP and a 50% increase in the PFC cap should lead to a significant increase in funds to
finance airport construction and improvement activity through FY2003 and beyond.
A number of issues that could be subject to congressional scrutiny in the 107th Congress
include: whether the pattern of spending of both AIP grants and PFC revenues encourage
competition or benefit incumbent carriers; how well FAIR21's spending guarantees hold up;
the effectiveness of aircraft noise mitigation at or near airports; and the earmarking of dollar
amounts for airports identified in the report language of the FY2001 conference report
(H.Rept. 106-940) and its potential impact on the FAA’s grant application process.
For more information on AIP, see CRS Issue Brief IB10026, Airport Improvement
Program, and also CRS Report RL30096, Airport Improvement Program Reauthorization
Legislation in the 106th Congress. (CRS contact: Bob Kirk)
Aviation Delays
Flight delays and cancellation in the U.S. air transportation system rose to record levels
in 2000. The problem costs the airlines an estimated $3 billion annually and causes great
inconvenience for shippers and passengers. Both the airlines and the federal air traffic control
(ATC) system have been blamed. On the federal side, billions of federal dollars are being
spent each year to modernize the air traffic control system, purchase new equipment, and
expand airport capacity. But the airlines express little confidence that these efforts will
provide near-term relief or be sufficient in the long-term to accommodate the forecasted
growth in air traffic – up from about 670 million passengers in 2000 to 1.0 billion forecast by
2010 and 1.5 billion by 2025. The ability of the FAA to manage the ATC system while
overseeing airline safety has been a disputed issue for some time. The increase in delays adds
voice to calls for ATC reform and/or regulatory remedies.
It is generally agreed that the delay problem is likely to get worse before it gets better,
and that correcting it is an evolutionary process that will take years to accomplish. The
answer may lie in a mix of solutions – technology, more runways, airline scheduling, and
airspace redesign among them. Congress has taken steps to make airlines provide better
information on the sources of delay, but there is much about the delay problem that is still not
known. For example, the FAA does not know what traffic load the ATC and airport systems
can handle without suffering major delays – now and into the future; or how much relief
technological options can provide – and on what timetable. The effective allocation of
resources may depend upon Congress having answers to questions such as these. For
additional information, see CRS Report RS20734, Aviation Delays. (CRS contact: Glen
Moore)
Airline Consumer Protection Legislation
At issue is how to respond to the growing dissatisfaction that airline consumers have
expressed in the press and increasingly to Members of Congress. Two summers of record
delays and flight cancellations by the major airlines, and a perception of complacency by the
airlines to passenger discontent, has led to calls for changes in airline customer service and
business practices. During the first months of the 106th Congress, several legislative initiatives,
collectively referred to as “airline passenger bill of rights” bills, were introduced. Most of the
bills proposed remedies to a variety of consumer complaints, mostly about delays,
CRS-4

---

IB10032
01-23-01
cancellations, partial ticket use, and provision of complete fare information. Some bills
proposed new or increased penalties, while others relied on administrative or legal remedies.
Similar legislation may be introduced in the 107th Congress.
The Air Transport Association (ATA), which represents the major air carriers, insists
that legislative remedies are not needed because air carriers are implementing “customer
service plans,” based on voluntary customer “Service Commitments,” that are designed to
restore consumer confidence in airline service. Among these are commitments to offer the
lowest fare available; to notify customers of known delays, cancellations and diversions; to
handle “bumped” passengers with fairness and consistency; and to meet customers’ essential
needs during long on-aircraft delays. Kenneth Mead, the DOT’s Inspector General (IG),
noted in a speech in October 2000, that his office had found “the airlines were making a clear
and genuine effort at strengthening the attention paid to customer service, but bottom-line
results are mixed, and the airlines clearly had a long ways to go to restore customer
confidence.”1
Although no free-standing airline consumer rights bills were enacted in the 106th
Congress, some consumer provisions were added by amendment to both the FY2000 DOT
Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-69) and to the FAA Reauthorization Act (FAIR21) (P.L. 106-
181). These provisions could be significant in the 107th Congress. One provision calls for the
IG to monitor and report on the airlines’ implementation of their voluntary “Service
Commitments.” Another provision orders the IG to investigate whether air carriers are
engaging in practices that constitute “unfair or deceptive trade practices” or “unfair methods
of competition” (pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 41712) when they sell tickets on flights that are
already overbooked or offer different low fares through different media (e.g. telephone or
Internet).
Specific issues that may reemerge in the 107th congress include: disclosure of the reasons
for cancellation, delay, or flight diversion; partial ticket use; access to all fares regardless of
the technology used to access the information; the right to deplane from delayed aircraft; and
“bumping” rights. There are also broader overarching issues including: what is the appropriate
federal oversight role in a deregulated airline environment; should certain practices such as
over-booking of flights be considered unfair or deceptive practices; how much of the seeming
decline in the quality of passenger treatment is due to existing record demand for air travel;
and is there a mismatch between demand and capacity that industry could better address? For
more information see CRS Report RL30691, Airline Passenger Rights Legislation in the
106th Congress. (CRS contact: Bob Kirk)
Airline Mergers
On May 24, 2000, United Airlines announced its intention to acquire and merge with US
Airways. This complex, $11.4 billion dollar proposal created immediate concern that it was
a precursor for further consolidation in the U.S. airline industry. The proposed merger joins
the Nation’s largest and sixth largest carriers, creating a firm that would be almost double the
size of its next largest competitor, American Airlines. The proposed merger would also result,
1 Remarks of DOT Inspector General Kenneth M. Mead To the Washington, DC International
Aviation Club. October 23, 2000.
CRS-5

---

IB10032
01-23-01
over time, in the creation of a new airline operating from Reagan National Airport – DC Air
– which would be the Nation’s only minority-owned airline.
The authority to approve or disapprove airline mergers rests entirely with the
Department of Justice (DOJ). The Department of Transportation (DOT) makes
recommendations to DOJ based on its evaluation of the effect of a proposed merger on airline
industry competition. The DOJ has already begun its evaluation of the merger; a ruling is not
expected before April 2001 at the earliest.

Congress has no specific statutory role in the airline merger process. Congress, however,
has already held hearings in the 106th Congress on the possible impacts of the merger and may
hold additional hearings in the future. Individual Members of Congress have taken positions
both for and against the merger. (CRS contact: John Fischer)
The European Union Hushkit Dispute
Early in 1999, the European Parliament adopted legislation that banned the introduction
of new hushkitted aircraft into European airline fleets. (“Hushkits” consist of jet engine
modifications designed to bring older, noisy engines into compliance with current noise
standards.) Beginning in April 2002, hushkitted non-European aircraft would be banned from
operating within the European Union (EU) unless they had already been operating in April
1999. This legislation responds to what the European Parliament believes is a growing
concern about noise levels around airports throughout the EU. This legislation required the
approval of EU Transport Ministers prior to implementation. On March 29, 1999, the
Ministers extended the deadline to April 29, 1999, to allow the possibility of further
discussion with the United States. The EU did adopt the rule on April 29, 1999.
Implementation of the rule was delayed, however, until May 4, 2000. In March 2000 the
United States filed a memorial with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
asking it to rule on the EU’s proposed policy. The EU has since suggested that the U.S.
action forces it to implement the rule.
The United States is opposed to the EU hushkit rules. The United States believes that
the EU is creating an aircraft noise regulatory framework that is at odds with international
rules on noise reduction agreed to by the ICAO. FAIR21 contains language that instructs the
Secretary of Transportation to continue to work to develop, through the ICAO, new
performance standards for aircraft and aircraft engines that will lead to a further reduction in
aircraft noise levels. That Act directs the Secretary to give high priority to developing
standards that ensure that United States air carriers and aircraft engine and hushkit
manufacturers are not put at a competitive disadvantage. As written by the EU, its hushkit
legislation primarily applies to aircraft and aircraft engines produced in the United States. In
addition, all aircraft engine hushkit producers are U.S. firms. As a result, the United States
believes the EU legislation is discriminatory and could cause serious economic damage to
U.S. firms.
In the 106th Congress, the House passed a bill “to direct the Secretary of Transportation
to prohibit the commercial operation of supersonic transport category aircraft that do not
comply with stage 3 noise levels if the European Union adopts certain aircraft noise
regulations.” The only aircraft that fits this definition is the Concorde, and its only regularly
scheduled routes were between New York and London, and New York and Paris (the
CRS-6

---

IB10032
01-23-01
Concorde is currently grounded for safety reasons). The bill was viewed by its supporters as
a way to retaliate for the EU legislation. A similar bill was introduced in the Senate, but not
considered.
In September 1999, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure marked
up a resolution that called on the Clinton Administration to use “all reasonable means” to
prevent EU implementation of its hushkit ban. The Senate meanwhile approved a similar
resolution in its version of the FY2000 Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriation Act. The
resolution is supported by the U.S. Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), but was opposed
by the Clinton Administration. Further legislative action is unlikely pending ICAO’s ruling on
the United State’s complaint currently before it. For more information, see CRS Report
RL30547, Aircraft Hushkits: Noise and International Trade. (CRS contact: John Fischer)
The Airbus A380 Trade Dispute
The 107th Congress is likely to react to the December 19, 2000 Airbus Industrie
announcement that it has formally launched a program to construct the world’s largest
commercial passenger aircraft, the newly numbered Airbus A380. This long expected launch
reopens a long-standing trade dispute between the United States and Europe about
subsidization of aircraft projects that compete directly with non-subsidized U.S. products, in
this case the Boeing 747 series aircraft. Several Members of Congress are likely to call for
hearings and other possible actions on this issue in the near future.
The A380 will be offered in several versions seating between 500 and 800 passengers.
The project is expected to cost at least $10.7 billion and might cost significantly more. Airbus
has 50 firm orders for the aircraft and an additional 42 options. Airbus expects that its
member firms will contribute 60% of this sum, with the remaining 40% coming from
subcontractors. State-aid, which is limited to one-third of the project’s total cost, by a 1992
Agreement on Government Support for Civil Aircraft between the United States and the EU,
would be used to assist the Airbus partner firms. Boeing does not perceive that an adequate
market exists to justify the large expenses needed to develop an aircraft of this size, and is
instead offering airlines newly stretched versions of its 747 aircraft.
At issue is at least $2.5 billion in already identified direct loans to be provided to Airbus
member firms by the governments of France, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom.
Additional funds are likely to be provided to subcontractors by other European nations such
as Belgium and Italy. The United States is concerned that the level of state-aid needed for
this project could violate the aforementioned bilateral agreement. There are also concerns
recently expressed by President Clinton and the Office of the United States Trade
Representative (USTR) that these loans will not be at commercial rates, and that they might
be forgiven if the A380 is a commercial failure. The European Union disputes these claims.
(CRS contact: John Fischer)
CRS-7

---

IB10032
01-23-01
Surface Transportation
Oversight of the Traffic Safety Grant Provisions of TEA21
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) (P.L. 105-178) authorizes
funding through FY2003 for a variety of traffic safety grant programs conducted by the
states. Collectively, these grants are intended to encourage the states to: strengthen their laws
and programs dealing with drunk driving, including the adoption and enforcement of a law
which makes it illegal for someone with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08% or
higher to drive a motor vehicle; increase seat belt use rates; improve the timeliness, accuracy,
completeness, uniformity, and accessibility of state crash and related highway data; and
conduct innovative strategies to deal with a variety of traffic safety challenges. The Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) have issued regulations to implement each of the new grant programs established
by TEA21.
Various committees of the 107th Congress are likely to oversee the implementation of
these grant programs. Policy issues and key questions associated with the grant programs
include: How effectively are these programs being administered? Can the grant application
processes be streamlined while still ensuring accountability for the use of federal funds? Are
larger financial incentives needed to accelerate increases in seat belt use rates and reductions
in the percentage of traffic crashes involving alcohol? How useful are the various grant
programs in reducing traffic safety challenges? Discussions over the reauthorization of most
of these grant programs, perhaps with some modifications, is expected to intensify during the
Second Session of the 107th Congress. For additional information, see CRS Report 98-890,
Traffic Safety Provisions in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. (CRS
contact: Paul Rothberg)
Oversight of the Environmental Provisions of TEA21
In the 107th Congress, the use of federal highway revenues to address the environmental
impacts of surface transportation may receive attention during oversight of TEA21
implementation. The law set aside roughly $12.5 billion from FY1998 to FY2003 for several
environmental programs. Most of this funding is reserved for air quality projects to assist
states in complying with federal air quality standards. The law also increased funding for
environmentally related transportation enhancements and established new programs to assist
transit systems in purchasing low-emission buses; conduct environmental research; encourage
environmental technologies for motor vehicles; and support projects that integrate
transportation efficiency, community preservation, and environmental protection. Other
provisions addressed the operation of low-emission vehicles in high occupancy vehicle lanes,
extended tax benefits for alcohol-based fuels, and required streamlining of the environmental
review process for highway projects.
Oversight of TEA21's environmental provisions during the 106th Congress focused
primarily on the implementation of requirements to streamline the environmental review
process for highway projects. Oversight of this issue will likely continue into the 107th
Congress. On May 25, 2000, DOT issued its environmental streamlining regulatory proposal
and accepted public comments through September 23, 2000. During the 106th Congress
CRS-8

---

IB10032
01-23-01
oversight hearings, some Members in the House and Senate criticized the DOT proposal for
not fully addressing the streamlining requirements and for addressing other planning and
regulatory issues not required under TEA21. Some of the principal criticisms of the proposal
were the absence of a requirement for environmental reviews to be conducted concurrently,
rather than sequentially, and to be completed within a cooperatively determined time period.
Some Members also criticized the proposal for not including a dispute resolution mechanism
to ensure that federal agencies complete their environmental reviews within mutually agreed
upon time frames. In response, DOT testified that it would carefully evaluate all of the
concerns and the proposed changes submitted during the comment period when developing
a final rule on the environmental streamlining regulations. By the conclusion of the 106th
Congress, DOT had not issued a final rule. It is uncertain whether the Bush Administration
will issue a different proposal that may be more acceptable to Congress. CRS Report 98-646
ENR, Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178): An Overview of
Environmental Protection Provisions, describes each of the above programs and indicates the
amount of funding authorized for them. (CRS contact: David Bearden)
Traffic Congestion
The Economist and others estimate that delays caused by congestion cost the
United States $100 billion per year. Most of these estimates are predicated on assigning a
dollar value to time lost by individuals and businesses as a result of people and products being
stuck in traffic. Sometimes these estimates also include energy and pollution costs. By
necessity these estimates are very generalized. Nonetheless, these estimates are illustrative of
a massive problem for American society. There are few individuals living near major
urbanized areas who could honestly claim to be unaffected by congestion-caused delays.
In the last several decades there have been numerous attempts to reduce traffic
congestion, primarily at the state, local, and regional levels. DOT has often provided funding
for specific projects, and has offered the expertise of its employees in the battle against
congestion. The crux of federal transportation spending, however, has been and continues to
be aimed at overall infrastructure improvement, with air quality improvement, congestion
improvement, and other issues being essentially secondary goals.
There is a sense that there is no one good solution to congestion problems and that
successful congestion reduction strategies require multiple remedies. New infrastructure
alone, at the level currently being constructed, has not been able to stay ahead of the
congestion problem. Efforts aimed at alleviating congestion by changing individual travel
behaviors have also been largely unsuccessful.
During the 107th Congress, discussion will begin on how, or whether, to modify the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21). Congestion issues can be expected
to play a major role in this discussion, especially as regards changes to specific federal
initiatives such as the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program (CMAQ), whose
purpose is to fund projects and programs in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas
for ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), and small particulate matter (PM-10) which reduce
transportation related emissions. (CRS contact: John Fischer)
CRS-9

---

IB10032
01-23-01
Amtrak Funding
Amtrak and its congressional supporters sought, but failed to achieve, the passage of
legislation, the High-Speed Rail Investment Act of 2000 (106th Congress: S. 1900/H.R.
3700), in the 106th Congress. Amtrak would have been allowed to raise up to $10 billion over
the next 10 years by issuing up to $1 billion in bonds each year to pay for track improvements
in the 10 high-speed rail corridors designated by the Department of Transportation.2 The
bonds would not have paid interest; instead the bondholders would have been eligible to
deduct a certain amount from their taxes. The estimated cost to the federal government over
the ten-year period was $3.2 billion; in exchange, Amtrak would receive a much larger
amount, and in a predictable manner. This would have enabled it to prepare realistic long-
term capital improvement plans. Participating states would have to provide a 20 percent
match.
While this bill did not pass, Senate leaders pledged to reintroduce the legislation early
in the 107th Congress; Senator John McCain, Chairman of the Committee on Commerce,
Science and Transportation, opposed the bill but promised to hold hearings on the
reintroduced bill during the 107th Congress and allow the legislation to move forward.3 (CRS
contact: David Randy Peterman)
Amtrak Oversight
The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-134, December 2, 1997)
requires that Amtrak be able to operate without using federal funds to cover operating
expenses by the end of FY2002. Amtrak has been using federal funds to help cover both its
capital expenses and operating expenses. If Amtrak is not able to cover its operating
expenses out of its own revenues by the end of FY2002, the Act provides that Congress will
consider an Amtrak reform plan. The reform plan would be drawn up by the Amtrak Reform
Council [http://(www.amtrakreformcouncil.gov]), another creation of the Act. Additionally,
the Act provides for an Amtrak liquidation plan that would be drawn up by Amtrak. Both
the General Accounting Office and the Inspector General of the Department of
Transportation have noted that Amtrak does not appear likely to achieve the congressionally-
mandated goal.4 (CRS contact: David Randy Peterman)
Railroad Safety Reauthorization
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is the primary federal agency that promotes
and regulates railroad safety. The development of new or revised regulations, the assessment
of the safety operations of railroads, and the promotion of compliance with the federal safety
regulations form the core of FRA’s safety program. The combined impact of FRA’s activities,
2 http:// www.fra.dot.gov/o/hsgt/hsgt.htm
3 “Amtrak Faces Funding Obstacles; Senator McCain Seeks Debate on Type of System U.S.
Needs,” Washington Post, January 11, 2001.
4 U.S. GAO, Amtrak’s Costs and Capital Needs, GAO/RCED–00–138; U.S. Department of
Transportation, Office of Inspector General, 2000 Assessment of Amtrak’s Financial
Performance and Requirements, CR–2000–121
CRS-10

---

IB10032
01-23-01
billions of dollars of investment in railroad infrastructure, as well as many other industry and
labor initiatives have yielded improvements in the long-term safety record of the railroad
industry, especially during the last 20 years. Nevertheless, a tragic and well-publicized train
crash historically occurs every few years that heightens interest in railroad safety. Further
improvements in both rail safety and FRA’s safety regulations and programs are possible, but
each approach has its own potential benefits and costs.
The last railroad safety reauthorization statute was enacted in 1994, and its funding
authority expired at the end of FY1998. FRA’s safety programs continue using the authorities
specified in existing railroad safety law and the funds that are appropriated annually. The
reauthorization process provides an opportunity to review federal policies and programs, to
consider the current state of railroad safety, and to explore various options intended to further
improve the long-term safety record. Some of the issues likely to be debated as part of the
reauthorization process include: Should railroads be required to implement operator fatigue
management plans? Should the hours-of-service regulations be extended to cover additional
railroad workers? What should be done, if anything, to deal more effectively with alleged
harassment and intimidation of railroad workers? What might be done to further reduce death
and injury at highway-rail grade crossings? Should FRA’s current safety program simply be
reauthorized without any new authorities or regulatory mandates? Forging new legislation in
the railroad safety arena is difficult, especially when a balance is sought among the interests
of public safety, railroad labor, and management. For more information, see CRS Issue Brief
IB10030, Federal Railroad Safety Program and Reauthorization Issues. (CRS contact:
Paul Rothberg)
Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety
The 107th Congress is likely to consider several bills that would reauthorize the
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA), as amended, (including P.L. 93-633 and
P.L. 101-500). That body of law specifies the broad purposes and operating authorities for
DOT’s hazardous materials (hazmat) safety program. Although hearings were held during
the 106th Congress, none of the committees of jurisdiction reported out a reauthorization bill.
Among the key issues under consideration are: the level of funding to support DOT’s hazmat
emergency preparedness grant program; development of cost-effective strategies to improve
further hazmat safety; proposed exemptions for various industries from the safety regulations;
and the appropriate role of DOT in the regulation of hazmat transportation. Similar issues
are likely to be debated during the 107th Congress. For additional information see: CRS report
RS 20580, Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety–Federal Program and Legislative
Issues. (CRS contact: Paul Rothberg)
Pipeline Safety
The 107th Congress is likely to consider several bills that would amend federal pipeline
safety law, which directs the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to regulate pipeline
transportation and storage of natural gases and hazardous liquids. Those bills would also
authorize funding for the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) of the DOT, which is charged with
implementing pipeline safety law. Among the topics being discussed as part of the process
of reauthorizing the OPS program are: state versus federal roles in pipeline safety, increased
community involvement in promoting pipeline safety, funding amounts to support OPS, and
new regulatory directives and authorities intended to improve the OPS program and
CRS-11

---

IB10032
01-23-01
associated state activities. For additional information, see CRS Report RS20640, Pipeline
Safety: Federal Program and Reauthorization Issues. (CRS contact: Paul Rothberg)
Firestone Tire Recall
On August 9, 2000, Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. (Firestone) issued a voluntary safety
recall of some 14.4 million, 15-inch tires. Based on about 4300 complaints and other data,
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is aware of reports totaling
148 deaths and more than 500 injuries allegedly related to certain Firestone tires. Most of the
incidents that resulted in deaths reportedly involved sport utility vehicles (SUVs), primarily
Ford Explorers. On September 1, 2000, NHTSA issued a warning to consumers
recommending that users of an additional 1.4 million Firestone tires should take a number of
actions to enhance their safety. Firestone declined to extend its recall to include these
additional tires. The Agency is investigating whether the scope of Firestone’s voluntary recall
should be expanded to a NHTSA-issued mandatory recall affecting additional Firestone tires.
The “Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD)
Act,” (P.L. 106-414), was enacted to strengthen NHTSA’s ability to detect and investigate
defects. More specifically, the bill includes provisions to: increase or strengthen reporting
requirements for manufacturers of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, increase civil
penalties for violations of the federal motor vehicle safety regulations, provide criminal
penalties under certain conditions, require a rulemaking to revise and update NHTSA’s tire
standards, increase the number of years that a remedy for a defect must be provided without
charge to the vehicle owner, and authorize increased funding for NHTSA. The 107th
Congress is likely to review NHTSA’s efforts to develop regulations and new information
programs required to implement this Act. For additional information, see CRS Report
RL30710, Firestone Tire Recall: NHTSA, Industry, and Congressional Responses. (CRS
contact: Duane Thompson and Paul Rothberg)
Child Safety Seats
Provisions seeking to improve child safety in transportation were incorporated into the
TREAD Act, which requires the Secretary to initiate a rulemaking intended to develop
regulations for improving the safety of child restraints, including reducing head injuries from
side impact collisions. P.L. 106-414 specifies 9 different aspects of rulemaking pertaining to
child safety and booster seats, including improved crash testing and better consumer
information. If the Secretary decides not to issue requirements in any of the 9 specified areas,
a report must be submitted to Congress explaining the reasons for such decisions. The
Secretary is also required to establish by regulation a child restraint safety rating program
within the same period. The TREAD Act also requires the Secretary to develop a five-year
strategic plan to reduce deaths and injuries caused by failure to use the appropriate booster
seat in the 4 to 8 year old age group by 25 percent. The 107th Congress is likely to review
NHTSA’s efforts to develop regulations and new information programs required to
implement this Act. (CRS contacts: Duane Thompson or Paul Rothberg)
CRS-12

---

IB10032
01-23-01
Hours-of-Service Regulations for Commercial Drivers
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), some safety and insurance
groups, and most of the commercial motor vehicle industry seek improvements to the hours-
of-service (HOS) regulations. These rules specify minimum off-duty and maximum on-duty
hours for commercial truck and bus drivers. Many agree that the HOS regulations do not
reflect current road conditions, operating logistics, or knowledge concerning rest and fatigue.
On May 2, 2000, FMCSA published in the Federal Register a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) to revise the HOS regulations. FMCSA proposes to require truck and
bus companies to provide drivers with better opportunities to obtain sleep, and thereby reduce
the risk of their drivers operating while drowsy, tired or fatigued. The core of FMCSA’s
proposal is to place each driver on a 24-hour cycle and a seven day work week, and, in many
cases, to limit their work to a maximum of 12 hours within a 14 hour period, followed by at
least a 10 hour off-duty period.

The issuance of FMCSA’s proposal led to a variety of administrative and congressional
actions. During 2000, FMCSA conducted eight public hearings on its HOS proposal, heard
from some 700 witnesses, and reportedly received some 70,000 comments. Because of
numerous concerns, many in the industry lobbied to prevent adoption of the NPRM into the
Code of Federal Regulations. The FY2001 DOT Appropriations Act, P.L 106-346, includes
a provision that prohibits the use of funds to issue a revised HOS rule for one year, but allows
the FMCSA to continue working on this rulemaking. Given the potential impacts of the
proposed rule, some industry spokesmen and Members of Congress have advised FMCSA
to proceed cautiously. The 107th Congress is likely to review FMCSA’s response to the
concerns that have been raised regarding the NPRM. (CRS Contact Paul Rothberg)
Maritime
Harbor Maintenance User Fees
User fees for deepening harbor channels for ships and for maintaining current depths by
dredging were established in 1986. The fees cover the federal contribution to the cost of such
services. Prior to 1986, the federal contribution came from the General Fund of the U.S.
Treasury. On March 31, 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the portion of the user fees
levied on exports to be unconstitutional, and such collections were discontinued. Fees on
imports continue to be collected. However, these have generated opposition from foreign
countries, which oppose import fees on the basis that such fees unfairly discriminate against
imports. On August 24, 1998, the Clinton Administration proposed a new user-fee system.
In his FY2001 Budget, President Clinton included, for the second time, a $1 billion per year
tax, the “Harbor Services User Fee,” to pay for harbor dredging. The user fee struck down
by the Court, the Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT), was based on the value of cargo exported;
the new fee would be based on the cargo-carrying capacity of the vessel, the type of ship, and
the number of times the ship enters or leaves a port. The proposal is opposed by most
shipping groups, including representatives of ports, because they prefer using monies obtained
from the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury rather than levying a user fee to pay for harbor
maintenance. (CRS contact: Gwenell L. Bass)
CRS-13

---

IB10032
01-23-01
Reauthorizing the Coast Guard
In the 107th Congress, a major issue may be how effectively is the Coast Guard
managing its increased responsibilities to interdict illegal drugs and immigrants while
continuing its traditional functions, such as search and rescue and aiding navigation. Its
capital needs are at the core of this issue. Congress generally authorizes funds for the Coast
Guard for 2-year periods and appropriates these monies annually in the DOT appropriations
bill.
The Coast Guard is a multi-function agency with a mission to protect people, the
environment, and U.S. economic interests, including maritime transportation, in coastal and
ocean waters. Extension of the U.S. Economic Zone to 200 miles in the 1970s and the related
geographic expansion of U.S. responsibilities for deepwater missions greatly transformed the
Coast Guard's operations. Increased duties related to high-seas illegal drug trafficking and
immigration have added to the agency's obligations and increased the complexity of the issues
it faces. Key acts include the 1998 Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act (P.L.
105-277, title VIII ), the Anti-Drug Abuse Acts of 1988 (P.L. 100-690), and the Maritime
Drug Law Enforcement Act (P.L. 99-570).
Issues for the 107th Congress include how the agency is operationally responding to new
demands and managing plans to replace many of its aging vessels and aircraft. The Coast
Guard’s major acquisition program is called the “Integrated Deepwater System,” which would
require an estimated $9.6 billion to fund an acquisition program over 20 years beginning in
FY2002. The program’s purpose is to identify needed vessels, aircraft, and related sensor,
communications, and navigation systems that work together to accomplish mission objectives.
Only planning funds were provided in FY2000 and FY2001 appropriations. On March 1,
2000, at a hearing of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies, House
Committee on Appropriations, DOT’s IG reported that the Coast Guard planned to request
$350 million in Fiscal Year 2002 and $500 million annually over the next 19 years to
implement its acquisition strategy, based on a Coast Guard initial estimate that the project
would cost $9.8 billion and take 20 years to complete. A 1999 GAO Report concluded,
“Unless the Congress grants additional funds, which, under existing budget laws could mean
reducing funding for some other agency or program, these other capital projects could be
severely affected” (GAO-RCED-99-6). With acquisition programmed to begin in FY2002,
Congress will be confronted with this issue in the FY2002 appropriations bill.
While this ambitious replacement plan challenges the Coast Guard, so do everyday
operations. To support current operational demands, the Coast Guard has had to shift funds
from other priorities. In testimony before the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation, GAO emphasized that sustaining Coast Guard anti-drug efforts will increase
resource pressures on other activities of the agency. GAO called for still greater management
efficiencies within the agency to address these constraints. For further discussion of these
issues and Coast Guard funding, see CRS Report 98-830, Coast Guard Integrated Deepwater
System: Background and Issues for Congress, discusses issues associated with the deepwater
program. For further discussion, see CRS Report RS20117, Coast Guard FY2000 and
FY2001 Authorization Issues. (CRS contact: Martin Lee)
CRS-14

---

IB10032
01-23-01
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
U.S. General Accounting Office. Major Management Challenges and Program Risks:
Department of Transportation. GAO-01-253. January 2001.
U.S. Department of Transportation. Top 12 Management Issues: Department of
Transportation. Office of Inspector General. Dec. 22, 1999. Report Number CE-2000-
026. [http://www.oig.dot.gov/audits/ce2000026.html]
U.S. Department of Transportation. Key Safety, Modernization and Financial Issues Facing
FAA. Office of Inspector General. April 11, 2000. Report Number AV-2000-072.
[http://www.oig.dot.gov/audits/av2000072.html]
CRS-15

---