.
Emergency Relief for
Disaster Damaged Roads
and Transit Systems: In Brief
Robert S. Kirk
Specialist in Transportation Policy
September 3, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43384
c11173008
.
Emergency Relief for Disaster Damaged Roads and Transit Systems: In Brief
Summary
Major roads and bridges are part of the federal-aid highway system and are therefore eligible for
assistance under the Emergency Relief Program (ER) of the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA). Following a natural disaster (such as Hurricane Sandy in 2012) or catastrophic failure
(such as the 2013 collapse of the Skagit River Bridge), ER funds are made available for both
emergency repairs and restoration of federal-aid highway facilities to conditions comparable to
those before the disaster.
State departments of transportation typically have close ongoing relationships with FHWA’s
division offices in each state, which facilitate a quick, coordinated response to disasters. Although
ER is a federal program, the decision to seek ER funding is made by the state, not by the federal
government.
The program is funded by a permanent annual authorization of $100 million from the highway
trust fund (HTF) along with general fund appropriations provided by Congress on a “such sums
as necessary” basis. A number of issues have arisen in recent years:
• The scope of eligible activities funded by ER has grown via legislative or FHWA
waivers of eligibility criteria or changes in definitions. As a result, in some cases
the ER program has funded activities that have gone beyond repairing or
restoring highways to pre-disaster condition.
• The $100 million annual authorization has been exceeded nearly every fiscal
year, requiring appropriations that can lead to delay in funding permanent repairs.
• Congress has directed that in some cases ER fully fund projects, without the
normal 10% or 20% state matching share, increasing the federal outlay for
disaster highway assistance on these projects and constraining the funds available
for other ER requests.
• The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that FHWA’s partnership
with the states was sometimes so close that some division offices were reluctant
to enforce compliance with the requirements of the ER program. FHWA has
taken certain corrective actions which Congress might find of oversight interest.
The 112th Congress authorized an emergency relief program for public transportation systems.
However, this program does not have a permanent funding source, and funds are to be provided
only by appropriation. The 2013 Disaster Relief Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-2) made available
appropriations of $10.9 billion (reduced by $545 million by sequestration) for the Public
Transportation Emergency Relief Program.
Congressional Research Service
c11173008
.
Emergency Relief for Disaster Damaged Roads and Transit Systems: In Brief
Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Background ...................................................................................................................................... 1
FHWA’s Emergency Relief (ER) Program ...................................................................................... 2
Funding ...................................................................................................................................... 2
The Federal Share................................................................................................................ 3
Eligibility and Program Operation ............................................................................................ 3
Emergency Repairs ............................................................................................................. 4
Permanent Repairs............................................................................................................... 4
GAO Concerns about Program Oversight ....................................................................................... 5
Recent “Quick Release” ER Allocations ......................................................................................... 6
FY2014 Nationwide ER Allocations ............................................................................................... 6
Skagit River Bridge Repairs ............................................................................................................ 6
Hurricane Sandy (October 28-29, 2012) ER Funding ..................................................................... 7
Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program .......................................................................... 7
Hurricane Sandy Public Transportation ER Funding ................................................................ 8
Tables
Table 1. Hurricane Sandy Allocations by State................................................................................ 7
Table A-1. Appropriated Funds for the ER Program: 1998-2011 .................................................... 9
Appendixes
Appendix. ER Program Appropriations ........................................................................................... 9
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 10
Congressional Research Service
c11173008
.
Emergency Relief for Disaster Damaged Roads and Transit Systems: In Brief
Introduction
Nearly all major roads and bridges in the United States are part of the federal-aid highway system
and are therefore eligible for assistance from the Emergency Relief Program (ER) of the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA). ER assistance is restricted to roads and bridges on the federal-
aid highway system, which essentially includes all public roads not functionally classified as
either local or rural minor collectors. For disaster-damaged roads that are not federal-aid
highways, states may request reimbursement for emergency road repairs from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA may also allow limited funding under its
Public Assistance Program for such things as snow removal and related operating costs during
extreme snowfalls, which are not eligible for ER funds.1
This report describes FHWA assistance for the repair and reconstruction of highways and bridges
damaged by disasters (such as Hurricane Sandy in 2012) or catastrophic failures (such as the
collapse of the Skagit River Bridge in 2013). It begins with a brief discussion of the legislative
origins of federal assistance, and then addresses eligibility issues and program operation.
Background
For 80 years, federal aid has been available for the emergency repair and restoration of disaster-
damaged roads. The first legislation authorizing such use of federal funds was the Hayden-
Cartwright Act of 1934 (P.L. 73-393). This act, however, provided no separate funds, and states
subject to disasters had to divert their regularly apportioned federal highway funds from other
uses to disaster repairs.
The Federal-Aid Highway and Highway Revenue Act of 1956 (70 Stat. 374 and 70 Stat. 387) was
the first act that authorized separate funds for the ER program (the program is codified at 23
U.S.C. §125). From 1956 through 1978, funding for the program was drawn 40% from the
Treasury’s general fund revenues and 60% from the highway trust fund (HTF). The HTF is
supported primarily by taxes paid by highway users, mainly on gasoline and diesel fuel. Starting
in 1979, the Emergency Relief Program was funded 100% from the HTF. Late in 2005, Congress
began appropriating monies from the general fund to supplement the $100 million permanent
authorization from the HTF.2 On July 6, 2012, the ER program was reauthorized through FY2014
by the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21; P.L. 112-141, §1107).3
1 FHWA, Emergency Relief Manual (Federal-Aid Highways), updated May 31, 2013, p. 19, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
reports/erm/er.pdf. See also MAP-21 Fact Sheet; Emergency Relief Program, 2013, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/
er.cfm.
2 Beginning with the December 30, 2005, enactment of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense,
the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery (P.L. 109-148), ER supplemental appropriations have been drawn
from the Treasury’s general fund.
3 CRS Report R42762, Surface Transportation Funding and Programs Under MAP-21: Moving Ahead for Progress in
the 21st Century Act (P.L. 112-141), coordinated by Robert S. Kirk.
Congressional Research Service
1
c11173008
.
Emergency Relief for Disaster Damaged Roads and Transit Systems: In Brief
FHWA’s Emergency Relief (ER) Program
The ER program provides funds for the repair and reconstruction of roads on the federal-aid
highway system that have suffered serious damage as a result of either (1) a natural disaster over
a wide area, such as a flood, hurricane, tidal wave, earthquake, tornado, severe storm, or
landslide; or (2) a catastrophic failure from any external cause (for example, the collapse of a
bridge that is struck by a barge).4 Historically, however, the vast majority of ER funds have gone
for repair and reconstruction following natural disasters.
As is true with other FHWA programs, the ER program is administered through the state
departments of transportation in close coordination with FHWA’s division offices in each state.5
Although ER is a federal program, the decision to seek financial assistance under the program is
made by the state departments of transportation, not by the federal government. Local officials
who wish to seek ER funding must do so through their state departments of transportation. They
do not deal directly with FHWA. As state departments of transportation normally deal with
FHWA staff at the state level on many matters, they typically have working relationships that
facilitate a quick coordinated response to disasters.
Funding
The ER program has a permanent annual authorization of $100 million in contract authority to be
derived from the highway trust fund. These funds are not subject to the annual obligation
limitation placed on most highway funding by appropriators, which means the entire $100 million
is available each year.6 Because the costs of road repair and reconstruction following many
disasters exceed the $100 million annual authorization, MAP-21 authorizes the appropriation of
additional funds on a “such sums as may be necessary” basis, generally accomplished in either
annual or emergency supplemental appropriations legislation.7 For a listing of ER appropriations
since 1998, see the Appendix.
As is true with other FHWA programs, ER is a reimbursable program. A state receives payment
only after beginning repairs and submitting vouchers to FHWA for reimbursement of the federal
share. However, once the state’s eligibility for ER funds has been confirmed by FHWA, it can
incur obligations knowing that it will receive reimbursement.
4 FHWA, Emergency Relief Manual (Federal-Aid Highways), pp. 1-67
5 See CRS Report R42793, Federal-Aid Highway Program (FAHP): In Brief, by Robert S. Kirk
6 ER funds were subject to the FY2013 sequester under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, as
amended. The sequester amount for the $100 million of MAP-21 contract authority was $5.1 million, and the sequester
amount for the $2.022 billion of supplementary funds provided in the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013 (P.L.
113-2) was $101.1 million. See http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/notices/n4510762.htm.
7 The extensive damage caused by Hurricane Katrina in 2005 raised doubts whether emergency supplemental ER
expenditures could be drawn from the highway account of the highway trust fund without constraining the ability of the
HTF to fully fund other authorized surface transportation programs. For that reason, supplemental ER appropriations
have come from the general fund since December 2005.
Congressional Research Service
2
c11173008
.
Emergency Relief for Disaster Damaged Roads and Transit Systems: In Brief
The Federal Share
Emergency repairs to restore essential travel, minimize the extent of damage, or protect remaining
facilities, if accomplished within the first 180 days after the disaster, may be reimbursed with a
100% federal share. Permanent repair projects, such as rebuilding a bridge or a segment of
damaged road, are reimbursed at the same federal share that would normally apply to the federal-
aid highway facility. For Interstate System highways the federal share would be 90%, and for
most other highways the share would be 80%. The requirement that the state provide a share of
the funding for permanent repairs applies whether or not they are done during the first 180 days
after the disaster. FHWA pays 100% of the cost of emergency or permanent repairs of roads on
federal lands.
Congress has on occasion authorized FHWA to pay 100% of ER program expenses for repair and
reconstruction projects related to particular disasters. Legislation for that purpose was enacted
following the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes and the collapse of the I-35W Bridge in Minneapolis in
2007. MAP-21 also allows a 90% federal share for states whose total eligible expenses in a fiscal
year exceed the state’s apportionments from the large formula programs (under 23 U.S.C. §104)
for the fiscal year in which the disaster occurred.
Eligibility and Program Operation
The ER program divides all repair work into two categories: emergency repairs and permanent
repairs. Only repairs to roads and bridges on the federal-aid highway system that have suffered
damage during a declared disaster or catastrophic failure are eligible for ER assistance.8 The
intent of ER assistance is to repair and restore highway facilities to conditions comparable to
those before the disaster, not to increase capacity or fix non-disaster-related deficiencies. MAP-21
broadly defined “comparable facility” as one that “meets the current geometric and construction
standards required for the types and volume of traffic that the facility will carry over its design
life.” FHWA’s ER handbook also directs that “design and construction of repairs should consider
the long-term resilience of the facility.” DOT defines resilience as the “capability to anticipate,
prepare for, respond to, and recover from significant Multi-hazard threats with minimum damage
to social well-being, the economy, and the environment.”
In regard to bridges, ER funds are not to be used if the construction phase of a replacement
structure is already in the state’s approved transportation improvement program at the time of the
disaster or if the bridge had been permanently closed to vehicular traffic. In general, work funded
by the ER program must occur within the federal-aid highway right-of-way. States must apply
and provide a comprehensive list of all eligible project sites and repair costs within two years of
the disaster or catastrophic event.
8 A governor may issue a formal proclamation of the occurrence of a disaster. A presidential declaration or the
governor’s request for this declaration can serve the same purpose. The state files a letter of intent to apply for ER
funding with the FHWA division office within the state. The FHWA division administrator may then concur that a
disaster occurred and substantial damage has occurred to federal-aid highway system roads, or that the criteria for a
catastrophic failure were met and that the damage is eligible under 23 U.S.C. §125. When the President has issued a
major disaster declaration, the division administrator’s concurrence is not necessary. See http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
reports/erm/er.pdf, pp. 30-31.
Congressional Research Service
3
c11173008
.
Emergency Relief for Disaster Damaged Roads and Transit Systems: In Brief
Contracts supported by ER funding must meet all conditions required by 23 C.F.R. Part 633A,
which regulates highway contracts. All contractors receiving ER funds must pay prevailing wages
as required under the Davis-Bacon Act.9 ER-funded contracts must abide by Disadvantaged
Business Enterprises (DBE) requirements, Americans With Disability Act (ADA) requirements,
“buy America” regulations, and prohibitions against the use of convict labor (23 U.S.C. §114).10
Repair projects funded under the ER program are subject to the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. The impact, however, is generally limited since
emergency repairs are normally classified as categorical exclusions under 23 C.F.R. Section
771.117 (c)(9), as are projects to permanently restore an existing facility “in-kind” to its pre-
disaster condition. Betterments may, in some cases, require NEPA review.
Emergency Repairs
These are repairs made during or immediately following a disaster to meet the program goals to
“restore essential traffic, to minimize the extent of damage, or to protect the remaining
facilities.”11 State and local transportation agencies can begin emergency repairs immediately;
prior approval from FHWA is not required. Once the FHWA division administrator finds that the
disaster work is eligible, properly documented costs can be reimbursed retrospectively. To be
eligible for a 100% federal share, emergency repair work must be completed within 180 days of
the disaster, although FHWA may extend this time period if there is a delay in access to the
damaged areas, for example due to flooding. Examples of emergency repairs are regrading roads,
removal of landslides, construction of temporary road detours, erection of temporary detour
bridges, and use of ferries as an interim substitute for highway or bridge service. Debris removal
is generally the responsibility of FEMA.12 The emergency repair part of the Emergency Relief
Program is designed to permit work to start immediately, ahead of a finding of eligibility and
programming of a project. In some instances, state departments of transportation have been able
to let ER-funded debris removal and demolition contracts on the day of a disaster event.13
Permanent Repairs
Permanent repairs go beyond the restoration of essential traffic and are intended to restore
damaged bridges and roads to conditions and capabilities comparable to those before the event.14
Generally, where the damaged parts of the road can be repaired without replacement or
reconstruction, this is done. MAP-21 includes a limitation that the total cost of an ER project
cannot exceed the cost of repair or reconstruction of a comparable facility. A comparable facility
is defined as one that meets the “current geometric and construction standards required for the
9 The Davis-Bacon requirements can be suspended by executive order (ref. 40 U.S.C. §276a-5). President Bush did this
in response to Hurricane Katrina. He reimposed the requirements November 8, 2005.
10 A state may request a waiver of the buy America requirements from FHWA based on a public interest rationale
under 23 C.F.R. §635.4109(c)(1)(i).
11 FHWA, Emergency Relief Manual (Federal-Aid Highways).
12 MAP-21 restricted debris removal under ER to events not declared a major disaster by the President or declared a
major disaster but where debris removal is not eligible under the Stafford Act.
13 A good example of this is the Northridge Earthquake. See Effects of Catastrophic Events on Transportation System
Management and Operations (Washington, DC: FHWA, 2004), pp. 37-45.
14 FHWA, Emergency Relief Manual (Federal-Aid Highways)
Congressional Research Service
4
c11173008
.
Emergency Relief for Disaster Damaged Roads and Transit Systems: In Brief
types and volume of traffic that the facility will carry over its design life.” This eligibility is
limited to the damaged portion of the facility.
ER funds may be used for temporary or permanent repair of a repairable bridge or tunnel. If a
bridge is destroyed or repair is not feasible, then ER funds may participate in building a new
comparable bridge to current design standards and to accommodate traffic volume projected over
its design life. In some cases “betterments” (added protective features, added lanes, added access
control, etc.) may be eligible, but they must be shown to be economically justified based on a
cost/benefit analysis of the future savings in recurring repair costs.
Permanent repair and reconstruction contracts not classified as emergency repairs must meet
competitive bidding requirements. A number of techniques are available to accelerate projects,
including design-build contracting, abbreviated plans, shortened advertisement periods for bids,
and cost-plus-time (A+B) bidding15 that includes monetary incentive/disincentive clauses
designed to encourage contractors to complete projects ahead of time. For example, the contract
for the replacement of the collapsed I-35W bridge in Minneapolis used incentives for early
completion. The new bridge was built in 11 months and was completed 3 months ahead of
schedule.16
GAO Concerns about Program Oversight
In 2007, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) expressed concern about the financial
sustainability of the ER program. Its report found that the “scope of eligible activities funded by
the ER program has expanded in recent years with congressional or FHWA waivers of eligibility
or changes in definitions,” and also that FHWA was not recapturing all unused program funds
allocated to states,17 so that states with immediate disaster needs had to wait for funding, while
states with no current disaster needs retained their allocations. A 2011 GAO report acknowledged
that FHWA had made progress in withdrawing some of the unobligated funds, but found that
FHWA lacked information to verify whether additional unused allocations were still needed. The
report noted that some ER projects “have grown in scope beyond the program’s goal of restoring
damaged facilities to predisaster conditions,” and that missing or incomplete documentation in
project files left the basis on which FHWA made eligibility determinations unclear.18 More
recently, a 2013 GAO report found that FHWA officials in some states were reluctant to recoup
funds from inactive ER highway projects over concerns over “harming their partnership with the
state. In other cases, FHWA has shown a lack of independence in decisions, putting its partners’
interests above federal interests,” GAO said.19
15 Cost-plus-time bidding (A+B method) includes two components. The A component is the traditional bid for all work
to be performed. The B component is a bid of the total number of calendar days required to complete the project. The
contract includes a disincentive for overrunning the time bid and an incentive for earlier completion.
16 Minnesota Department of Transportation, Interstate 35W Bridge in Minneapolis, http://www.dot.state.mn.us/
i35wbridge/index.html.
17 U.S. GAO, Highway Emergency Relief: Reexamination Needed to Address Fiscal Imbalance and Long-term
Sustainability, GAO-07-245, February 23, 2007, pp. 1-60, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-245.
18 U.S. GAO, Highway Emergency Relief: Strengthened Oversight of Project Eligibility Decisions Needed, GAO-12-
45, November 2011, pp. 1-56, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-45.
19 U.S. GAO, Highway Infrastructure: Federal-State Partnership Produces Benefits and Poses Oversight Risks, GAO-
12-474, April 2012, pp. 21-22, 27-28, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-474.
Congressional Research Service
5
c11173008
.
Emergency Relief for Disaster Damaged Roads and Transit Systems: In Brief
MAP-21 and FHWA have made changes that may, at least in part, have mitigated some of GAO’s
concerns. MAP-21 requires states’ applications for ER funding to include a comprehensive list of
all eligible project sites and repair costs by not later than two years after the event. MAP-21’s
definition of “comparable facility” broadened and clarified the costs of non-betterment repairs
that could be eligible for ER funding. FHWA has updated the Emergency Relief Manual to clarify
eligibility and procedural issues. The implementation of these changes may be of oversight
interest to Congress.
Recent “Quick Release” ER Allocations
The FHWA Emergency Relief Manual describes the “quick release” method for developing and
processing a state request for ER funding as a method that “provides limited, initial ER funds for
large disasters quickly. Quick release funds are intended as a ‘down payment’ to immediately
provide funds for emergency operations until the standard application may be submitted and
approved.”20 For example, on July 14, 2014, $750,000 in quick release funds was provided to
South Dakota for damage due to heavy rain and on June 23, 2014, $750,000 was approved for
flood-damaged roads in Minnesota.
FY2014 Nationwide ER Allocations
On January 14, 2014, FHWA allocated just under $310 million of ER funds to the states for
reimbursement for repairs to damaged roads and bridges across the nation.21 Most of the funds
were allocated to states for damage that occurred in 2012 and 2013. Some funds were allocated
for permanent repairs to earlier disasters. On August 6, 2014, FHWA announced a second
allocation ($333.9 million) of ER funds to the states.22 The allocations included $130 million for
the September 11, 2013, flooding in Colorado; $33 million for the May 2014 I-495 pier damage
in Delaware; and $35 million for the March 22, 2014, State Road 530 mud slide in Washington
State, as well as funds for repairs from the ER backlog across the United States.
Skagit River Bridge Repairs
On May 23, 2013, the southbound span of the I-5 Bridge over the Skagit River in Washington
State collapsed after being struck by a truck carrying an oversized load. Temporary spans were
opened on June 19, 2013. The permanent replacement span was installed September 15, 2013,
under a design/build contract. ER allocations for the bridge totaled $16.6 million. Washington
State DOT took advantage of the lane closures to do separate rehabilitation work not eligible for
ER funding but eligible for National Highway Performance Program and Surface Transportation
Program funding. Allocations from all federal-aid highway programs for the project totaled $21.2
million.
20 FHWA, Office of Infrastructure, Emergency Relief Manual, May 31, 2013, pp. 30, 33-34, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
reports/erm/er.pdf.
21 Allocations were based on the amounts that FHWA division offices indicated would be needed for obligation during
the first half of FY2014.
22 The state-by state allocations are set forth at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pressroom/fhwa1425.cfm.
Congressional Research Service
6
c11173008
.
Emergency Relief for Disaster Damaged Roads and Transit Systems: In Brief
Hurricane Sandy (October 28-29, 2012) ER Funding
The Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013 included a provision that the Secretary of
Transportation could obligate more than $100 million, but not more than $500 million, to a single
natural disaster event in a state for ER funding arising from damage caused in 2012 by Hurricane
Sandy. Table 1 presents the allocations of ER funding.
Table 1. Hurricane Sandy Allocations by State
(through August 15, 2014)
State
Date Range
Amount Allocated ($)
Connecticut
November 1, 2012-January 14, 2014
7,564,174
New Jersey
November 1, 2012-October 7, 2013
310,527,520
New York
October 31, 2012-February 15, 2013
280,000,000
North Carolina
October 31, 2012-February 15, 2013
24,800,000
Rhode Island
October 31, 2012-May 16, 2014
16,593,065
Total
639,484,759
Source: FHWA. Includes a May 16, 2014, allocation withdrawal of $1,406,759 of Rhode Island’s al ocation.
Further requests for allocations could occur.
Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program
Section 5324 of MAP-21 created a new program for public transportation similar in intent to
FHWA’s ER program.23 In the past, disaster funding for damage to public transportation facilities
or operations has been funded through FEMA or through appropriations targeted to transit needs
and administered by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) following a specific disaster. The
fledgling program is to help states and transit agencies cover operating and capital costs incurred
due to damage as a result of disasters and emergencies. Eligible projects and activities include
• capital projects and activities for protecting, repairing, and replacing public
transportation equipment and facilities; and
• operating costs to cover evacuation activities, rescue operations, and temporary
transit service, or the reestablishing, expanding, or relocating of transit route
service before, during, or after an emergency event.
The program does not have a permanent annual authorization. All funds are authorized on a “such
sums as necessary” basis and require an appropriation to be made available. The Secretary of
Transportation determines the terms and conditions for grants under the program. Operating costs
are eligible for reimbursement for one year beginning on the date a disaster is declared, although
the Secretary may extend that period to two years after determining a compelling need. Grants
may only be made for expenses that are not reimbursed by FEMA.
23 FTA, Fact Sheet: Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program, http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/MAP-
21_Fact_Sheet_-_Public_Transportation_Emergency_Relief_Program.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
7
c11173008
.
Emergency Relief for Disaster Damaged Roads and Transit Systems: In Brief
Hurricane Sandy Public Transportation ER Funding
The Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013 provided $10.9 billion for FTA’s Emergency
Relief Program for recovery, relief, and resilience projects and activities in areas impacted by
Hurricane Sandy. Approximately $10.4 billion remained available after sequestration under the
Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25).24 FTA is allocating the money according to tiers of
formula and competitive award types:25
• $4.4 billion for response, recovery, and rebuilding costs incurred by affected
agencies;
• $1.3 billion for locally prioritized resilience projects at designated transportation
agencies in the New York metropolitan area;
• $3 billion for competitive resilience projects that will protect or otherwise
increase the resilience of public transportation equipment and facilities from
future hurricanes and storms in the areas affected by Hurricane Sandy;
• $1.1 billion for response, recovery, and rebuilding costs incurred by affected
agencies (to be announced); and
• amounts to be determined for direct transfer resilience grants for any statutorily
eligible project not readily fundable through the formula distribution or the
competitive application process.
The federal cost share for FTA emergency relief projects is not to be more than 80% of the total
project cost. Federal cost share for resilience projects is to be no more than 75% of the total
project cost. As of September 2, 2014, the allocations to affected agencies totaled $5.67 billion
including $1.3 billion in resiliency allocations.
There has been controversy over the use of FTA Emergency Relief funds for betterments or new
facilities that appear to have little or no connection to the goals of making the transit systems
resilient to future storm events similar to Sandy. FTA requires that project sponsors’ system plans
show steps taken to protect existing facilities and increase the resilience of existing assets prior to
contemplating investment in redundant assets.
24 FTA, Emergency Relief Program: Hurricane Sandy Disaster Aid, Washington, DC, http://www.fta.dot.gov/about/
15138.html.
25 FTA, “Notice of Funding Availability for Resilience Projects in Response to Hurricane Sandy,” 78 Federal Register
78486-78493, December 26, 2013. Also, FTA, “Notice of Availability of Emergency Relief Funds in Response to
Hurricane Sandy,” 78 Federal Register, 8691-8697, February 6, 2013 and Second Allocation of Public Transportation
Emergency Relief Funds in Response to Hurricane Sandy: Response, Recovery a& Resiliency 78, Federal Register,
32296-32302, May 29, 2013 (see also correction of June 4, 2013, 33467-33468).
Congressional Research Service
8
c11173008
.
Emergency Relief for Disaster Damaged Roads and Transit Systems: In Brief
Appendix. ER Program Appropriations
Table A-1. Appropriated Funds for the ER Program: 1998-2011
(excludes annual $100 million permanent authorization)
Date
Highway
Public Law
Enacted
Title of Appropriations Act
Trust Fund
General Fund
P.L. 105-174
May 1, 1998
1998 Supplemental Appropriations and
$259,000,000
Rescissions Act
P.L. 106-346
Oct. 23, 2000
Dept. of Transportation and Related Agencies
$720,000,000
Appropriations, 2001
P.L. 107-117
Jan. 10, 2002
Dept. of Defense and Emergency
$175,000,000
Supplemental Appropriations for Recovery
from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on
the United States Act, 2002
P.L. 107-206
Aug. 2, 2002
2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for
$265,000,000
Further Recovery from and Response to
Terrorist Attacks on the United States
P.L. 108-324
Oct. 13, 2004
Military Construction Appropriations and
$1,202,000,000
Emergency Hurricane Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2005
P.L. 108-447
Dec. 8, 2004
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005
$741,000,000
P.L. 109-148
Dec. 30, 2005
Dept. of Defense, Emergency Supplemental
$2,750,000,000
Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the
Gulf of Mexico and Pandemic Influenza Act,
2006
P.L. 109-234
June 15, 2006
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act
$702,362,500
for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and
Hurricane Recovery, 2006
P.L. 110-28
May 25, 2007
U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina
$871,022,000
Recovery, and Iraq Accountability
Appropriations Act, 2007
P.L. 110-161
Dec. 26, 2007
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008
$195,000,000
P.L. 110-329
Sept. 30, 2008
Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance,
$850,000,000
and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009
P.L. 112-55
Nov. 18, 2011
Consolidated and Further Continuing
$1,622,000,000
Appropriations Act, 2012
P.L. 113-2
Jan. 29, 2013
Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013
$1,920,900,000
Source: FHWA, Office of Program Administration.
Note: P.L. 113-2 provided $2.022 billion. Amount shown reflects 5% rescission due to sequestration.
Congressional Research Service
9
c11173008
.
Emergency Relief for Disaster Damaged Roads and Transit Systems: In Brief
Author Contact Information
Robert S. Kirk
Specialist in Transportation Policy
rkirk@crs.loc.gov, 7-7769
Congressional Research Service
10
c11173008