ASSURED TIMETABLE FOR PROJECT REVIEW.

SEC. 3011. ASSURED TIMETABLE FOR PROJECT REVIEW. (a) In General.— Section 3(a) is amended by striking paragraph (b) and inserting the following new paragraphs: “(6) Assured timetable for projects in alternatives analysis, preliminary engineering, or final design stages.— “(A) Alternatives analysis stage.— For any new fixed guideway project that the Secretary permits to advance into the alternatives analysis stage of project review, the Secretary shall cooperate with the applicant in alternatives analysis and in preparation of a draft environmental impact statement, and shall approve the draft environmental impact statement for circulation not later than 45 days after the date on which such draft is submitted to the Secretary by the applicant. “(B) Preliminary engineering stage.— Following circulation of the draft environmental impact statement and not later than 30 days after selection by the applicant of a locally preferred alternative, the Secretary shall permit the project to advance to the preliminary engineering phase if the Secretary finds the project is consistent with the criteria set forth in subsection (i). “(C) Final design stage.— The Secretary shall issue a record of decision and permit a project to advance to the final design stage of construction not later than 120 days after the date of completion of the final environmental impact statement for such project. “(D) Full funding grant agreement.— The Secretary shall negotiate and enter into a full funding grant agreement for a project not later than 120 days after the date on which such project has entered the final design stage of construction. Such full funding grant agreement shall provide for a Federal share of the cost of construction that is not less than the Federal share estimated in the Secretary’s most recent report required under section 3(j) or an update thereof unless otherwise requested by an applicant. “(7) Permitted delays in project review.— “(A) In general.— Advancement of a project under the timetables specified under paragraph (6) shall be delayed only— “(i) for such period of time as the applicant, solely at the applicant’s discretion, may request; or “(ii) during such period of time as the Secretary finds, after reasonable notice and opportunity for comment, that the applicant has failed, for reasons solely attributable to the applicant, to comply substantially 105 STAT. 2096with requirements of this Act with respect to the project. “(B) Explanation of delay.— Not more than 10 days after imposing any delay under subparagraph (A)(ii), the Secretary shall provide the applicant with a written statement that (i) explains the reasons for such delay, and (ii) describes all steps which the applicant must take to end the period of delay. “(C) Reports.— The Secretary shall report, not less frequently than once every 6 months, to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs of the Senate in any case in which the Secretary— “(i) fails to meet a deadline established by paragraph (6); or “(ii) delays the application of a deadline under subparagraph (A)(ii). Such report shall explain the reasons for the delay and include a plan for achieving timely completion of the Secretary’s review of the project. “(8) Treatment of programs of interrelated projects.— “(A) Full funding grant agreement.— In accordance with the timetables established by paragraph (6) or as otherwise provided by law, the Secretary snail enter into 1 or more full funding grant agreements for each program of interrelated projects described in subparagraph (C). Such full funding grant agreements shall include commitments to advance each of the applicant’s program elements (in the program of interrelated projects) through the appropriate stages of project review in accordance with the timetables established by paragraph (6) or as otherwise provided for a project by law, and to provide Federal funding for each such program element. Such full funding grant agreements may also be amended, if appropriate, to include design and construction of particular program elements. Inclusion of a nonfederally funded program element in a program of interrelated projects shall not be construed as imposing Federal requirements which would not otherwise apply to such program element. “(B) Considerations.— When reviewing any project in a program of interrelated projects, the Secretary shall consider the local financial commitment, transportation effectiveness, and other assessment factors of all program elements to the extent that such consideration expedites project implementation. “(C) Programs of interrelated projects.— For the purposes of this paragraph, programs of interrelated projects shall include the following: “(i) The New Jersey Urban Core Project as defined by the Federal Transit Act Amendments of 1991. “(ii) The San Francisco Bay Area Rail Extension Program, which consists of not less than the following elements: an extension of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District to the San Francisco International Airport (Phase la to Colma and Phase lb to San Francisco Airport), the Santa Clara County Transit 105 STAT. 2097District Tasman Corridor Project, and any other program element designated by any modification to Metropolitan Transportation Commission Resolution No. 1876, as well as program elements financed entirely with non-Federal funds, including the BART Warm Springs Extension, Dublin Extension, and West Pittsburg Extension. “(iii) The Los Angeles Metro Rail Minimum Operable Segment-3 Program, which consists of 7 stations and approximately 11.6 miles of heavy rail subway on the following lines: “(I) 1 line running west and northwest from the Hollywood/Vine station to the North Hollywood station, with 2 intermediate stations; “(II) 1 line running west from the Wilshire/Western station to the Pico/San Vicente station, with 1 intermediate station; and “(III) the East Side Extension, consisting of an initial line of approximately 3 miles in length, with at least 2 stations, beginning at Union Station and running generally east. “(iv) The Baltimore-Washington Transportation Improvements Program, which consists of the following elements: 3 extensions of the Baltimore Light Rail to Hunt Valley, Penn Station and Baltimore-Washington Airport; MARC extensions to Frederick and Waldorf, Maryland; and an extension of the Washington Subway system to Largo, Maryland. “(v) The Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon Westside Light Rail Program, which consists of the following elements: the locally preferred alternative for the Westside Light Rail Project, including system related costs, set forth in Public Law 101–516 and as defined in House Report 101–584; and the Hillsboro extension to the Westside Light Rail Project as set forth in Public Law 101–516. “(vi) The Queens Local/Express Connector Program which consists of the following elements: the locally preferred alternative for the connection of the 63rd Street tunnel extension to the Queens Boulevard lines; the bellmouth portion of the connector which would allow for future access by both commuter rail trains and other subway lines to the 63rd Street tunnel extension; planning elements for connecting both upper and lower level to commuter and subway lines in Long Island City; and planning elements for providing a connector for commuter rail service to the East side of Manhattan and subway lines to the proposed Second Avenue subway. “(vii) The Dallas Area Rapid Transit Authority light rail elements of the New System Plan, which consists of the following elements: the locally preferred alternative for the South Oak Cliff corridor; the South Oak Cliff corridor extension-Camp Wisdom; the West Oak Cliff corridor-Westmoreland; the North Central corridor-Park Lane; the North Central corridor-Richardson, Plano and Garland extensions; the Pleasant Grove 105 STAT. 2098corridor-Buckner; and the Carrollton corridor-Farmers Branch and Las Colinas terminal. “(viii) Such other programs as may be designated in law or by the Secretary.”. (b) Transitional Provision.— In the case of a project (including programs of interrelated projects) that, as of the date of enactment of this Act, has reached a particular stage of project review under section 3(a)(6) of the Federal Transit Act, the timetables applicable to subsequent stages of project review contained in such section shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.