Segment 2 Of 2     Previous Hearing Segment(1)

SPEAKERS       CONTENTS       INSERTS    
 Page 12       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S PROPOSED NEPA AND PLANNING RULES

Wednesday, September 13, 2000
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Ground Transportation, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, D.C.

    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Thomas E. Petri [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
    Mr. PETRI. The subcommittee will come to order. I would like to apologize for starting a bit late. I received information there would be a roll call vote on the floor of the House right around 10:00, and a journal vote, I am told, will occur after the 1-minutes. So I thought it probably best to go ahead and get started and accomplish as much as we can until then.
    We are meeting today to examine the Department of Transportation's proposed environmental and planning rules. During the reauthorization of ISTEA, State and local governments reports that the process of getting Federal approval to build highway or transit process was cumbersome, inefficient and overly time-consuming. We recognized the problem and included provisions in TEA-21 directing the Department of Transportation to streamline the environmental and project development processes.
    I had hoped that the publication of the proposed planning and NEPA rules would be a golden opportunity for the Department of Transportation to show its intention to implement the statute and to avoid placing new burdens on the projects sponsors. Sadly, the issuance of a proposed rule has not met these expectations. The rules appear to be in direct violation of the letter and of the spirit of the streamlining provision in TEA-21.
    Let me give an example of the problems these rules present for my own State, Wisconsin. If the proposed rule is finalized without substantive change, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation has conservatively estimated statewide increased costs of $360 million and the inability to complete 340 to 360 miles of currently scheduled road improvements. In other words, a full one-third of the increased funding received by Wisconsin under TEA-21 would be used to comply with new Federal regulations. The gas taxes being paid by Wisconsin motorists would go toward complying with Federal red tape rather than towards important highway improvements and safety projects in the State.
 Page 13       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Our first panel of witnesses will present testimony from the Department of Transportation, and we expect to get a sense of the schedule for completing the rule and finding out how the Department of Transportation plans to resolve the concerns that have been raised.
    The second panel of witnesses will give a perspective of the rule from transportation practitioners and State, local and metropolitan officials.
    And with that, I would call on the ranking minority member of the subcommittee, Mr. Rahall, for any opening statement he would like to make.
    Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would observe that this is probably going to be the last meeting of the subcommittee this year, this Congress, and as it is currently formulated. You probably know that better than me, but I am just speculating.
    Mr. PETRI. I agree.
    Mr. RAHALL. Regardless of the outcome of the November elections, as I understand you will not be chairman of this subcommittee in the next Congress.
    Mr. PETRI. That's right.
    Mr. RAHALL. You are moving on to other pastures. For my part, I want to say I have enjoyed serving as the ranking Democrat these past 6 years. Of course, my druthers are to be sitting where you are instead.
    Mr. PETRI. I guess.
    Mr. RAHALL. But I do want to express my deepest appreciation for the bipartisanship for the leadership you have displayed during your reign as chairman of the subcommittee. It has been more than a pleasure to serve with you. Indeed, it has been a pleasure to serve with you.
    Mr. PETRI. Well, thank you.
    Mr. RAHALL. And you can pass me the gavel now.
 Page 14       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    But, indeed, when this subcommittee, when we look back over the record under Chairman Petri's leadership, we originated the largest transportation bill in the history of the Nation in TEA-21. Right here in this subcommittee that bill was born. This subcommittee, under our leadership, also generated many other important policy initiatives: the National Highway System Designation Act, the ICC Termination Act, the Pipeline Safety Act of 1996, among others, and we are ending the current Congress with an effort to enact landmark changes to the Railroad Retirement System. So these are no small and insignificant matters. And I would say to my dear friend, Chairman Petri, that you should be proud of your achievements as Chairman. Again, it has been my pleasure serving with you.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
    Mr. RAHALL. As to the subject matter of this particular hearing, I have heard the concerns expressed by the States and the concern expressed by you, Mr. Chairman, from your particular State as well, and I share them.
    It is my hope that Administrator Wykle will use this opportunity to help quell these fears; that instead of streamlining the environmental review process, as we intended with TEA-21, our fear, of course, is that perhaps the proposed regulations will make matters more cumbersome, costly. And perhaps Administrator Wykle can set those fears aside for us. We certainly hope that he will today.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. PETRI. Now we turn to the first panel, a familiar witness before this subcommittee, the Honorable Kenneth R. Wykle, who is the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration. Welcome, General.
    And also Mr. Patrick R. Reilly, Chief Counsel of the Federal Transit Administration.

 Page 15       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
STATEMENTS OF HON. KENNETH R. WYKLE, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; PATRICK R. REILLY, CHIEF COUNSEL, FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

    Mr. PETRI. General Wykle, if you would like to proceed.
    Mr. WYKLE. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Rahall, thanks very much for the opportunity to appear before you today and talk about our proposed rulemakings. On May 25, FHWA and FTA issued three interrelated notices of proposed rulemaking, the planning and NEPA proposals that are the focus of today's hearing, and a third NPRM addressing the National ITS Architecture and Standards.
    Through these rulemakings, we seek to improve the project delivery process by better integrating the planning and the NEPA requirements and ensure that ITS is appropriately considered. Our proposals, and I emphasize that these are proposals, they are not final rules, and so our proposals respond to the new regulatory requirements or statutory requirements in TEA-21 while attempting to align our regulations with other laws and court decisions.
    We developed these proposals through an open and inclusive process that began shortly after enactment of TEA-21. We held regional forums, focus groups and workshops. Our outreach effort identified three main areas of concern with respect to the environmental streamlining. First, the need for early involvement of a variety of parties in the planning and project development process; second, flexibility for the States to create their own custom-tailored procedures; and, three, improve the linkage between the planning and NEPA processes.
    We listened carefully to our stakeholders and have attempted to provide options that will assist the States, the local governments, and transit operators in identifying ways to improve their transportation planning and decision-making. We have definitely not taken a federally mandated one-size-fits-all approach.
 Page 16       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    It is clear that achieving some of these desired outcomes will be difficult. An example is the elimination of the major investment study. We deleted this required study for major projects and we focused simply on improving the relationship between the planning and environmental processes. In our view, being able to use planning products more effectively in the environmental process should eliminate redundancy and duplication, reduce cost, and shorten project delivery time.
    Our recommended changes to the environmental rule recognizes that the work done in the planning process will be used at the environmental process stage. We know that there are concerns about a perceived broadening in the range of projects affected or subjecting the planning process to NEPA analysis. We asked AASHTO and the States to note the flexibility, because they determine the degree of detail that they decide to go into in terms of moving these projects through the process.
    We will certainly review these concerns and other comments to ensure that in our effort to reflect congressional intent, we have not created unintended consequences nor failed to give appropriate recognition to the many interests affected by transportation decision-making. We want to work with our station to address their issues.
    In TEA-21, Congress directed the Department to streamline both the planning process and the environmental review process. Our proposed regulatory changes are only a part of our streamlining efforts. Guiding projects through the planning and review processes faster, without compromising environmental and civil rights safeguards, is a complex undertaking in which there is no easy solution. As Chairman Petri observed a few months ago, environmental streamlining is like turning an oil tanker.
    DOD regulatory revisions alone will not provide a total solution for reducing delays because the majority of environmental laws and regulations are under the authority of other Federal agencies. But we are working with our Federal partners, State DOTs, and other stakeholders on multiple approaches to streamlining. We are developing national and regional memoranda of understanding, programmatic agreements, dispute resolution procedures, reimbursement procedures for Federal resource agency staffing and performance measures so that we can report back to you on streamlining progress over time.
 Page 17       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    We are encouraging the expanded use of a Federal agency's ability to delegate authority to State agencies to act on its behalf in carrying out Federal regulations. This has occurred in Vermont with historic preservation responsibilities, and in Michigan and New Jersey for wetland permitting.
    Our regulatory proposals are now in the public review and comment stage. And in response to many requests, we have extended the comment period until September 23rd. We assure you that the Department will carefully evaluate all the concerns and the proposed changes that are submitted to us and make changes as appropriate before we finalize these rules.
    We look forward to working with this subcommittee and with the many interested parties that have commented on our NPRMs to improve the planning and environmental review process. This cooperative effort will lead to development of regulations that will successfully implement our shared goal of streamlining the process. The Department is open to all sound alternatives. The outcome of this rulemaking is certainly not predetermined. We look forward to your questions. Thank you.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
    Mr. Reilly, you do not have a statement, I take it.
    Mr. REILLY. That is correct.
    Mr. PETRI. Mr. Rahall.
    Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Wykle, we appreciate your testimony today and the fact that this is not locked in concrete, or asphalt I should say as well, but that there is time for comments to be heard, and you are extending that comment period, et cetera.
    The fundamental issue, of course, that we are grappling with is quite simple, and that is we thought, in the Congress that is, that we were streamlining the environmental review process for highway projects in TEA-21. Not shortchanging the environment, but rather streamlining the decision-making process. Now, almost 2 years later, FHWA finally proposes regulations and a hue and cry erupts among the States that claim, and I think with some justification, that these proposed regulations actually would impose new and more complex requirements; that in several instances the proposed regulations go so far as to contravene the letter of TEA-21 provisions.
 Page 18       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    I would note that this is not in the gray areas, such as where Congress remains silent or where we did leave the administration discretion or where discretion could be exercised. Your formal testimony notes that the FHWA will be working with stakeholders to resolve these issues. We appreciate that, but I think we are looking for something a bit more affirmative.
    In all candor, the proposed regulations, and I must add perhaps they are not totally of your doing, perhaps there is some other input here from some other heavy hands, but the proposed regulations are so far off the mark in a number of respects that they do represent a dramatic departure from both the letter and the intent of the TEA-21 provisions that I believe we do need something more affirmative; that the standard line is perhaps not sufficient here.
    Can you comment maybe be a little bit further?
    Mr. WYKLE. I will try, sir, in terms of the general content.
    It certainly was not our intent to go farther than the Congress intended for us to go or to take additional authorities that were not there. As I mentioned, we held focus groups, outreach sections, and I attended one of those myself with the president of AASHTO and several of the State CAOs, and a lot of other groups and heard comments. So there are lots of competing interests out there.
    So we tried to take all of this input and do our best in terms of putting this together. It is a proposed rule, and so we put that out for comments. I must say that we have heard verbally of dissatisfaction on the part of some of the groups involved, but we have yet to receive their comments in writing. So once we receive those, certainly we will take those into consideration and do some revision.
    We agree with some of the issues that have been raised with us verbally, that we need to go back and change some of the words and some of the thrust of this regulation because we see how it is being interpreted differently than what we intended. And I can give a couple of examples of that if you would like, or we can take some more questions.
 Page 19       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. RAHALL. Let me get into one with my second question.
    You can see, then, where it may be viewed that you are going beyond those gray areas to which I referred; that you are going beyond the areas that were left to administration discretion and really countering the intent of TEA-21?
    Mr. WYKLE. That was not our intent, but we can see how it appears to others, and so we are willing and will address those.
    Mr. RAHALL. As we all know, there are good riders and bad riders, depending on one's perspective on a given issue. But I can just give you warning right now, this issue, if not addressed, is begging for congressional intervention in one form of a rider or another.
    The States appear simply in trauma, and I do hope they get their written comments in to you rather quickly. But let me give you an example. As you well know, so much of the routine highway work is done under a categorical exclusion. However, as I understand it, the proposed rules would actually extend the same type of coordinated review process used for projects considered under full-blown EIS to those under categorical exclusions.
    I think this is a very dangerous ground, very dangerous, to get into. Am I correct in my understanding there?
    Mr. WYKLE. If I understand the question, and some of the verbal comments we have received, it has to do with the major investment study and whether or not that will apply to a broader range of projects. We have eliminated all references and requirements for a major investment study.
    Per the guidance in TEA-21, what we were attempting to do was to integrate the planning and the NEPA regs together, make them interrelated, with the emphasis on the importance of doing the planning piece of that work first and doing it well, and then the products that would come out of that process to be used as part of the NEPA process, because experience has shown that if you don't do that early and do it properly, that is where you have a lot of the challenges in court. So if we could use that product all the way through, we felt that would streamline the process, reduce the redundancy and reputation and so forth, and that would be a good mechanism.
 Page 20       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    We say very clearly in the proposed reg that the States will determine the degree of detail they do those things. So it was clearly our intent to use the planning products throughout the NEPA process, not put additional burden and workloads on the States. And if, in fact, we have done that, we will change it because that was not our intent.
    In terms of specific category exclusions, we have, in fact, expanded the number of projects that fall in that category. So we have expanded the number of projects that are excluded.
    Mr. RAHALL. Are full-blown EISs required on those?
    Mr. WYKLE. No, there is not a full-blown EIS required on a category exclusion or an environmental assessment.
    Mr. RAHALL. Or the ones you have added to the category?
    Mr. WYKLE. Right, an EIS is not required. They are excluded; a category exclusion. As an example, routine repavement previously required documentation, even though it was a category exclusion. We have taken that requirement for documentation out. We have taken other project types and excluded them.
    So we see it as a significant broadening and expansion and providing flexibility. But we have heard that AASHTO and others don't read it that way, so we need to find out from their comments how we are reading these things differently and make the appropriate adjustments.
    Mr. RAHALL. Thank you.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you. We will provide another round, but, Mr. Ney, you had a statement you wanted to make.
    Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I will be brief. I do realize a vote has been called.
    Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank you for holding this hearing. Back in 1998, we all worked long and hard to make sure the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st century was a fair and equitable bill. Now, more than 2 years after the passage of the historic legislation, we find ourselves engaged in a process of maintaining the standards of fairness and equity referred to in the title of the bill.
 Page 21       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    A number of important issues were debated in the legislation. As a House conferee, I felt privileged to participate in that various energetic give and take of public debate. Today's hearing is focusing on some of the issues that were most important to many of us during the debate over TEA-21. In particular, I just wanted to mention and refer to the transportation planning process and how nonmetropolitan local officials would participate in that process.
    I believe that with the passage of TEA-21, the intent of Congress is crystal clear: to allow rural local officials to actively participate in the transportation planning process by providing them with the same access to those who ultimately decide where Federal tax dollars are spent as those who represent metropolitan areas. This hearing will help to ensure, I believe, that the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration are fully complaining with the congressional intent.
    One area where I strongly believe the Federal Highway Administration hit the bull's eye is with the consultation language for rural officials in the development of statewide transportation programs and plans. Along with my colleague, Mr. Barcia from Michigan, and a strong bipartisan coalition of rural members, we worked hard to close the inequity gap between urban and rural elected officials with respect to participation in the planning process. So I think what we did is going to ease a lot of tensions out there in the hinterland when it comes to this.
    Specifically, I am pleased that the definition of consultation has been modified to require that the State processes for rural official consultation be documented and cooperatively developed with rural officials. Otherwise, the process too often becomes a one-way directive from the State instead of a constructive dialogue among appropriate State and local officials. The addition of a nonmetropolitan local official definition is also welcomed, I would note, and it reinforces their evolving and growing role in transportation planning.
 Page 22       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Under the statewide planning section, FHWA takes another step closer to creating a level playing field for rural officials, something that is basically currently absent in many of our States.
    Most importantly, the proposed rule carries out the congressional intent of providing an enhanced role for rural elected officials while recognizing the difference in our State structures. So the rule both retains flexibility and gives rural local officials a seat at the table.
    Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank two organizations who have been extremely supportive and acutely aware of the need for the changes proposed in TEA-21 in the rules process; both the National Association of Development Organizations, NADO, and the National Association of Counties, NACo, have played a valuable, constructive, and professional role, and I want to thank them for their help in addressing transportation problems in rural America.
    Once again, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your hearing.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
    And this is a very important subject. I know you and your staff have been working very hard on it, and we really do want to get it right.
    There will be additional questions, if you can stay. We will recess for about 15 minutes. I know Mr. Rahall, and there may be some other members joining us, and I have some questions as well. So we will recess until quarter to 11 and restart the subcommittee hearing at that time.
    Mr. WYKLE. We will remain here, sir. Thank you.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. PETRI. The subcommittee will resume.
    And Mr. Horn, if you have any questions.
 Page 23       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. HORN. Let me pass right now until I get this material out.
    Mr. PETRI. All right, then, I will start. I do have several questions.
    You indicated that the comment period for the proposed rules has been extended to September 23rd. Do you contemplate further extensions, or do you have any goal in mind for issuing the final rules?
    Mr. WYKLE. At this time we do not look to extend that farther. That appears to be enough time for those that asked for the extension. We were on a time line to try to finish this by about the end of the year. But based upon the verbal comments we have had, we anticipate getting considerable number of comments back. So once we see the magnitude of these comments and the significance of them, then we will just have to see how long it will take. But we are not intending just to ram this through and get it done by the end of the year or anything like that.
    It will be based upon the number of comments we get, how we are able to respond to those and how significant the revisions will be. That will drive the time line.
    Mr. PETRI. We are certainly very well aware that this involves coordination and input from not just your agency but the EPA and other agencies. And as we worked on TEA-21, our goal in the negotiations and the way environmental programs should work, our goal was not to get involved in that fight particularly, but to maintain environmental standards and programs that had, for better or for worse, worked their way through the process and made it into law. Instead, we wanted to do what we could to provide for better coordination and streamlining so that, within that framework, maintaining those standards, we could, at the same time, meet the safety and transportation and economic needs of our country.
    There is, as you know, a great deal of concern on the part of people who have to administer these programs that that spirit is not embodied fully in the proposed regulations as they are coming forward. In that connection, there is a fear that these rules could render all active planning and on-site NEPA documents worthless. Why was a grandfathering clause not included in the proposed rule so that we could do what we have been doing under the old system? And if we are going to try to streamline it, then we can do even better under the new system, but not start all over again and delay everything. That is not streamlining.
 Page 24       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Could you just explain that? That is just one small suggestion from me.
    Mr. WYKLE. Sure. From our perspective, when we put this together, as we put the preamble out there, we asked for comments as to whether or not it would be appropriate to implement this once the final rule is done or to have a phase-in period, or make some other considerations like that or to grandfather. We have not received comments back yet suggesting that we do so. We would certainly consider that.
    But I would say one other thing in terms of the actual wording in the document here. We talk about the following sources of information shall be utilized to satisfy paragraph 1(a), which is the purpose and needs statement, but at a level of detail agreed to by the NPO, the State DOT and the transit operator. So depending on the type project, those individuals get together and decide how much detail they think is needed. So if they have a project that is well on the way, as you say, under the current process, then they can agree that that is satisfactory and they do not need to do one of these other steps. We are leaving that option open to them.
    So by doing things like that, we think we are providing considerable flexibility to the States and recognizing that one process or one size does not fit all. So we are open to those types of suggestions that you mention, and we have asked for that in our comment period.
    Mr. PETRI. Good. There is concern that under the existing rules, if things had moved forward, if you then inject a new group and someone has the right to object to what they didn't have the right to object to, it will not expedite the process. It will provide another opportunity for throwing a monkey wrench and new litigation.
    I will defer, I guess, and Mr. Lipinski, do you have any questions?
    Mr. LIPINSKI. I'm not sure if I do or I don't, but I did have a question which the Illinois Department of Transportation had asked me to ask, and that was about the projects that are going to be—supposedly there are six projects in Illinois that are to be completed in the next 6 to 12 months.
 Page 25       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    They are concerned, and I guess it is along the same lines that the Chairman was talking, if we are within 6 to 12 months of the completion of a project under one set of regulations, does the potential exist for, when these regulations go through, that some individual or entity could jump in there and protest this project under some new criteria, thereby delaying the project longer?
    And I think that is what the Chairman was talking about also, but I arrived after he had started, so I wasn't sure that that was what he asked. So I'm asking that question and you can give me the same answer you gave him and then I will understand it, hopefully, more fully.
    Mr. WYKLE. I think the questions are very similar, and so my response to the Chairman was that one of the things we put in the preamble to the regulation was asking for input or recommendations as to whether or not this regulation, as proposed, should take effect immediately or whether there should be a phase-in period or whether other types of adjustments should be made. And I went on to read the one example there in terms of the wording where it provides flexibility for the groups that are involved in this project, the NPOs, the States, the transit operators, to get together and determine the degree of detail that they need to go into for their various documents.
    But the way the Chairman asked the question, I think, is slightly different, in terms of what we need to take a look at. And that is while all may agree that what has been done is appropriate, whether or not there will be some basis for some external group that has an axe to grind or some other concern, to use this document as a way of slowing down this project. So we will just have to go back and take a look at the proposed rule from that aspect.
    Mr. LIPINSKI. So that, as I understand it, right now the proposed rule is sort of vague on that. Maybe it should be taken into consideration that the rule should be modified that any project that is at least along up to a certain period of time would be able to qualify under the old criteria rather than the new criteria. Perhaps that would be the best way of coming to some kind of resolution of this question.
 Page 26       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. WYKLE. I think we will have to go back and take a look at that, sir, based on the questions we have received here this morning and see how we cover that in terms of avoiding that type of an issue.
    Pat, do you have anything from the transit side you want to add?
    Mr. REILLY. Nothing to add, just that we are open to looking at and resolving that issue, and it is something we had in mind when we issued the notice of proposed rulemaking and actually wanted comment on.
    So once the comments are in September 23rd, we will go back and think long and hard about the question you have raised and resolve it.
    Mr. LIPINSKI. I would assume that since the Chairman raised the same question, or a very similar question, you realize that there is considerable amount of concern about this. I'm sure you have had others raise the question too.
    Mr. WYKLE. We understand, yes, sir. It is a key issue we need to look at.
    Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski.
    Mr. Horn.
    Mr. HORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I believe when you appeared before the Senate committee, the ranking Democrat, Mr. Baucus of Montana, called the proposed regulations that are before us, ''A new exercise in chaos theory.'' he had said, ''We certainly don't want to give shortscript to the environment, but we clearly asked for streamlining, not something that makes the process more cumbersome. And to the degree that our assumptions seem to be correct, we may have to go back to the drawing board.'' .
    And the ''may'' is you, Mr. Administrator, going back to the drawing board. But I am just curious, did you prepare any regulatory impact analysis for these rules?
 Page 27       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. WYKLE. For that question, in terms of increased workload and/or cost from a regulatory standpoint; is that the gist of the question?
    Mr. HORN. Well, did you look at what the States were doing? Did you consult them prior to it or did you just wait until you threw the regs out and said, okay, you can go file your comments?
    Mr. WYKLE. No, sir, we consulted the States ahead of time. As I mentioned in my opening statement, we had outreach sessions, we had focus groups, and we had work groups. We then put together, based on all that input, an options paper and sent that out for comment.
    But once we got into that, due to the Administrative Regulatory Act, we are precluded then from going back and directly negotiating with them. So we got their input through those various means, we did the best we could in trying to put all that together into this proposed rule, and that is what we have put out and now we are waiting for their substantive comments back.
    Mr. HORN. Prior to your issuing this proposed rule, how many States replied to you on, say, the draft you are sending to some of the States, all of the States, what?
    Mr. WYKLE. I don't have that number, as to how many. I can get that and provide it for the record.
    Mr. HORN. Okay. Without objection, Mr. Chairman, I would like to know how many States responded to your proposal before you put it in the Federal Register.
    Mr. WYKLE. So how many responded to the white paper we put out?
    I believe it was primarily responded to by AASHTO, representing all the States, but I want to verify that.
 Page 28       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. HORN. Does that include metropolitan planning organizations?
    Mr. WYKLE. AASHTO would not be speaking for them, so I will get a count for you.
    Mr. HORN. How about local governments in general, besides States and metropolitan planning organizations?
    Mr. WYKLE. I don't have that answer. I can tell you that to date, we have received roughly 100 comments on the planning reg and about 35 comments or submissions on the NEPA reg, and I have a breakdown of that that I can tell you what we have received.
    To date, we have received 1 from a State DOT, 8 from NPOs, 2 from transit operators, 21 from local governments, 1 from a State government agency, not a State DOT, 9 from Indian tribal governments, 22 from regional councils, councils of government, 7 from associations, 3 from individual citizens, 17 from nonprofit groups, and then others, 10.
    So that is the type of groups that we have received comments from to date.
    Mr. HORN. Okay. Well, this is to date, after you had already registered it. But the question was, did you consult anybody before you put it in the Federal Register? Most agencies don't change anything after something is in the Federal Register, or very little. So I just wonder about does anybody in Washington care about the views of the people that are on the firing line.
    Mr. WYKLE. We do, and I will get you that answer. I understand the question was prior to putting out the reg, so I will get that.
    Mr. HORN. Now, one of the things that concerns a lot of us is why was there not a grandfathering clause not to include in the proposed rules some of these projects that exist? How do you handle that?
 Page 29       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. WYKLE. That is the very question I believe the Chairman asked and Mr. Lipinski asked, and so we need to go back and take a look at that.
    We thought we were perhaps making provisions for that by asking for comments about a phase-in period and the flexibility in terms of the NPOs and the States deciding the degree of detail. But as I understand the question, it goes beyond that and asks, well, even though we may all agree to that, whether this provides a basis for other parties to come back and take action that might slow it down. So we will just need to take a look at that and ensure we make provisions to prevent that from happening.
    Mr. HORN. Well, it is commendable that you do that, because otherwise people have spent millions of dollars with a document here, a document there, and if all that work has to be redone, unless it has a little better sense than maybe the previous regs, it just seems to me you need to recognize that so we can get on with things in local America and help them rather than hurt them.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Other questions on this side?
    Mr. Terry.
    Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Administrator, I appreciate that you have recognized that it takes far too long to work through the chaos, especially on noncontroversial projects.
    Let me tell you a little bit about my background. I will start off with a story. I spent 8 years on the Omaha, Nebraska, city council, and we had a couple of street widening project called the Federal highway something something. I just know it as Blondo Street, because out of my 38 years on this earth, I spent 30 of them within walking distance of this street, and it was a major project for traffic movement and efficiency when I was on our city council.
 Page 30       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    It was simple widening, from about 102nd Street to about 110th. It was delayed for almost 2 years trying to work through the environmental aspects. And there was nothing but homes on each side and four lanes of road. There was very little impact. But the delays, according to our engineers, were directly related to working through the chaos, and now some of these rules proposed make that even a more difficult trek.
    But not only is it the frustration of having to keep a two-lane road in a now populated area with traffic jams in that area, but by delaying that project for nearly two construction seasons, and, remember, in Nebraska we have two seasons, construction and winter seasons. So when we miss a summer, we have missed the entire year. We missed two summers trying to adhere to the rules. That particular stretch of Blondo Street, by the time we actually got around to construction, probably had increased costs of about 10 to 15 percent.
    Now, adjoining that project was a street widening of 108th Street, which has been delayed now for about 4 years, because, of course, it snowballs. And since I am no longer on the city council, I have not looked back to see what the increased costs now of just simply a 4-year delay of the 108th Street project is, but I would happen to guess it is around 20 percent.
    So when these rules are proposed, what procedures are in place to recognize, at least for these noncontroversial projects, the costs to States and local governments to try to wade through this chaos? What type of analysis is there; what type of procedure is there?
    Mr. WYKLE. Well, there are some things in this proposed rule that we think should assist with that. The first, of course, is trying to integrate both the planning and the NEPA process so the work that is done in the very early stages in the planning process, the products, the studies, the analysis that come out of that are actually used in the NEPA process, the environmental process. So by using those products, we think that will speed up the process, reduce redundancy, duplication, those types of things.
 Page 31       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    In addition to that, in this proposed rule, we have expanded the number of what we call category exclusions. So if this particular type work is one of those type of projects, then you don't have to do the environmental piece at all because it is excluded from that. So routine resurfacing, perhaps guardrail work, some of those types of things.
    I can't tell you whether the particular projects you just described would fall under that without looking at it, but we have expanded that to try to give more flexibility from that standpoint.
    So by trying to improve the overall process and eliminate duplication or redundancy, bringing the two together better and broadening the categories of category exclusions where environmental assessments can be used, as opposed to a complete Environmental Impact Statement, all of these things are designed to improve the process, and that is our intent. Time will tell whether or not we have been successful, but that is the direction we are trying to go.
    Mr. TERRY. Very good. Thank you.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Further questions?
    Mr. LaHood.
    Mr. LAHOOD. We had a meeting in our office recently with the Illinois Department of Transportation, and they have some serious objections to this rule. I don't know if they have spoken with you or had a chance to meet with you, but, obviously, they asked me to intervene here today.
    I have ten questions, which I am not going to put you on the spot with now, but I would like to enter them into the record and ask you to respond to them at your convenience, at an appropriate time.
    And I should also tell you that Mr. Lipinski and I intend to send a letter objecting to this rule, and laying out the reasons for it. We believe that this is not in conformity with the intent of the law, which was to streamline and speed up the massive number of construction projects that are going on and will go on over the next several years as a result of TEA-21.
 Page 32       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    So I will leave it at that, and if you could answer these questions and take into consideration the comments that Congressman Lipinski and I will put in a letter objecting, I will be grateful. Thank you.
    Mr. WYKLE. Thank you, sir. We look forward to your questions and we will certainly respond to those. And, in addition, the letter that the two of you sign, we will consider those comments, because it is certainly our intent to meet the congressional intent of streamlining and improving the process. And as I mentioned in my opening statement, if we are not doing that, then we need to go back and change our wording, our language, our phrases, and our terms because we want to improve the process.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you. We were just talking. Our staff goes to a lot of conferences. That is one of their jobs. And these horror stories come up. I think in your testimony you mentioned that this really was not intended for routine maintenance and replacement of existing facilities, and yet a mayor in the State of Washington brought up the fact that because he had to replace a traffic light within 300 feet of the Columbia River, they required an Environmental Impact Statement that cost them $4,000 to get in this little town.
    So there needs to be some way of working to improve the presumptions. Somehow people feel it is someone else's money, and they will fritter it away, and it makes them important in this world, I guess, to be able to say no and fill out pieces of paper and all that. The goal, I guess, was to protect the river, but the pole was already there and the light is already there, and you are just replacing it. Unless the goal was to get this town out of there, or to move the city within 300 feet of the river. Maybe that was the goal. But I guess $4,000 was spent, they did replace the light, so that goal was not achieved, but the taxpayers' money was frittered away.
    So these were areas that we were hoping instead of just adding to the complexity we could sort things out. And if through previous reviews and studies and work projects have been established, it certainly makes sense to at least maintain them and upgrade them for safety and public convenience and not force people to go back through the whole process all over again at tremendous expense. And the worry out there is that we are moving somewhat backward rather than forward in that process as a result of those ''streamlining regulations.'' .
 Page 33       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    I know that within departments there is a little bit of, you know, Americans are very competitive, so it's we won this one, or we won that one, and people are out there saying this is going to improve the scope of their agency because they will have more say over transportation projects or whatever. That was not the intent. The intent was to get the job done, not improve or hurt anyone's turf. So I just urge you to fight a little harder to make sure the transportation people don't get the short shrift under the guise of better coordination and streamlining, which is what Congress' clear bipartisan message was. The concern is that that is not happening here.
    Mr. WYKLE. Sure, I understand your frustration, sir, and the frustration of other members, and certainly of the mayor that you commented on and others that are involved in this transportation business in working to get projects through to meet the desires and needs of the citizens.
    So for all of those things that are within our area of authority or influence, we are working to do that through such things as category exclusions. And as you mentioned, if things fall in a safety area, traffic control devices, of course, which a signal is, all of those types of projects, finding ways to exclude them, environmental assessments as opposed to environmental impact statements, to move those projects along and get them done more quickly.
    Having said all of that, sir, though, there are these other agencies that if they feel their turf is being touched, they have the option of raising those issues, and they are outside of our control: Fish and wildlife, the Corps of Engineers, Federal land management agencies. And so I know it is Congress' intent to try to improve the entire process, but those agencies are out there that feel that they have a role to play and they influence some of these things that are outside our ability to control. But I certainly understand the frustrations, and we will do as much as we can to speed those types of projects through the process.
    Mr. REILLY. Let me just say from the Federal Transit Administration perspective, we commit to working with the Federal Highway Administration to respond to these concerns that you have set forth this morning.
 Page 34       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Thank you both. If there are no additional questions, we do have some questions we would like to submit in writing, and other members may have those as well and we will hold the record open for your response.
    Mr. WYKLE. Sure.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much, and we will now call the second panel.
    Mr. WYKLE. Can I say, thank you very much, sir, and echoing what Congressman Rahall said at the beginning, it certainly has been my pleasure to appear before this committee where you have been chairman over the last few years. We very much appreciate working with you and your staff and the other members, so thank you.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you. We have tried to avoid it being one of these chamber of horrors that I am sure everyone worries about the first time they are supposed to come up here. I was always told as long as they do not ask you to raise your right hand and swear, then it's probably fairly benign.
    Mr. WYKLE. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
    The second panel, Mr. Thomas R. Warne, Executive Director of the Utah Department of Transportation and President of AASHTO this year; Ms. Mary E. Peters, Director of the Arizona Department of Transportation; Jane Hague, Council Member, King County, Washington, and President of the National Association of Counties; Peter Plumeau, who is the Executive Director of the Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization in Vermont, appearing on behalf of the Association of metropolitan Planning Organizations; Bill Millar, who is the President of the American Public Transit Association, and a familiar figure to us all; as well as Mr. Timothy S. Stowe, Vice President, Transportation and Planning for Anderson and Associates on behalf of the American Consulting Engineers Council.
 Page 35       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
STATEMENTS OF THOMAS R. WARNE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, AND PRESIDENT, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS; MARY E. PETERS, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; THE HONORABLE JANE HAGUE, COUNCIL MEMBER, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AND PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES; PETER PLUMEAU, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CHITTENDEN COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION, BURLINGTON, VERMONT, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS; WILLIAM W. MILLAR, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSIT ASSOCIATION; TIMOTHY S. STOWE, VICE PRESIDENT, TRANSPORTATION AND PLANNING, ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES, INC., ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN CONSULTING ENGINEERS COUNCIL

    Mr. PETRI. Thank you all for appearing here today, and for the effort that went into your prepared remarks, and we invite you to summarize them for 5 minutes, beginning with Mr. Warne.

    Mr. WARNE. Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee, I'm Tom Warne, and I'm the Executive Director of the Utah Department of Transportation, and this year serve as the President of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO. I am speaking this morning as the President of AASHTO, representing the States.
    Two years ago, when TEA-21 was enacted, Congress had a very good idea. It not only increased highway and transit investments by 40 percent, but you also recognized that in order for these investments to pay off in real transportation improvements, we in the States have to have help in overcoming the layer upon layer of Federal reviews that can add 5 to 10 years to the life of a project.
    You directed the Department of Transportation to work with other agencies in streamlining the Federal red tape. We are here before you today to tell you that these proposed regulations just are not streamlining.
 Page 36       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    I have no doubt that our partners at the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration had the best of intentions when they started out, but after toiling with this proposal for 2 years, what they have produced are regulations that will add more delays to what we are already experiencing, introduce new requirements for compliance, and expose us to a mine field of potential litigation.
    We feel so strongly about the threats these regulations contain, that the AASHTO Board of Directors, the 50 State CEOs like myself, passed a resolution asking for your intervention and clarification during these hearings to return the agencies to the original course you set in TEA-21. We also urged that the regulation be substantially rewritten and put out for a new round of public comment.
    We have provided for the record details of our concerns, and I will highlight a few of these areas: Sins of omission and commission that we see in these regulations. I will analyze them in terms of what you said and in terms of what we got.
    You said you wanted to see the requirement for major investment studies of large metropolitan projects eliminated as a stand-alone planning component, but integrated as a linkage between the regular planning and the NEPA process, and done so without expanding the scope of the MIS requirements. What we got was an even broader mandate that requires MIS-type analyses for all projects in metropolitan areas regardless of size, scope or cost. We don't believe this is streamlining.
    You said you wanted States to consult with local governments and document how they do so, but you did not dictate a one-size-fits-all approach requiring local sign-off and subject to Federal review and approval. What we got was a rule that requires local governments sign off on the consultation process and allows the U.S. DOT to approve or reject State-wide transportation programs based on whether they believe local concurrence has been received or not. This is not streamlining.
 Page 37       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    You said you wanted specific time frames established for reviews to be completed by Federal agencies and disputes resolved so that projects would not languish for months or even years. This was not even addressed in the regulation.
    We also believe the regulations have totally missed the mark in applying the NEPA process to projects, both large and small. Based on FHWA's 1998 data on environmental impact statements, 84 percent of such statements required from 4 to 10 years to complete the process. Completing the sign-off on Corps of Engineers wetland permits, Section 404 historic reviews, and endangered species reviews takes years longer. We believe these regulations would only worsen that report.
    For large projects, the regulations require that enhancements get major engineering analysis, and that every possible alternative be given equal amounts of engineering and environmental analysis, greatly enlarging every EIS.
    For small and uncontroversial projects, the regulations would mandate that the same kind of coordinated review process required for a full-scale EIS would also be conducted for hundreds and hundreds of other projects now handled by categorical exclusion or by environmental assessment.
    The 4(f) review process for historical sites is in urgent need of reform and should be a top priority. This regulation asked for comments, but makes no efforts to streamline that process.
    Let me just give you a couple of examples of how we are impacted. In Wisconsin, in your district, Mr. Chairman, your Department of Transportation estimates that projects currently on the books will increase by an estimated $50 million by implementing this regulation.
    In Illinois, they estimate that projects will take 2 years longer to implement, adding 5 percent per year for implement.
 Page 38       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    In Montana, where they have never done a major investment study, they will now have to do major investment studies on many projects.
    As I have said before, Mr. Chairman, this proposal is just not streamlining. Frankly, it is worse than what we have today. The only recourse we see is to start over from the ground up, to draft regulations that actually accomplish what you have asked for.
    We stand ready to work with the Federal Highway Administration in trying to come up with regulations here that, in fact, accomplish what you intended, and that is to streamline the project delivery process and the environmental process.
    I thank you for the opportunity to testify today and will be happy to answer questions at the appropriate time.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you. I guess it is sort of alarming testimony, but important to get it on the record.
    Ms. Peters.

    Ms. PETERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for the opportunity to appear before you today. For the record my name is Mary Peters, and I am the Director of the Arizona Department of Transportation. We certainly agree that comprehensive planning and thorough analysis of the environmental impacts are crucial components of transportation projects. We take very seriously our stewardship responsibility to enhance our environment and to protect that environment.
    We were very encouraged when you heard our concerns about the complexity of these processes and enacting the landmark Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. Regrettably, we were disappointed when within 2 years of enacting that very legislation the Federal resource agencies enacted numerous additional transportation-related regulations which added even more complexity, uncertainty, cost and delay to transportation projects.
 Page 39       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    We estimate in our State that a typical environmental impact statement, which normally takes 3 to 5 years to complete, would take twice that time or between 7 and 10 years under the proposed regulations. The cost associated with conducting those environmental impact statements would double as well from approximately 3 million to 6 million or more. There are numerous specific examples in Arizona of the needlessly burdensome effect of the existing redundant regulations. Let me detail a few of these for you.
    Last summer the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service declared 731,000 acres of land, virtually most of the southern part of the State of Arizona, as habitat for the pygmy owl, a bird that is abundant just south of our border in Mexico. The habitat designation itself defied all logic. It was based on convenient man-made features, such as the centerline of our highway.
    This kind of arbitrary designation has a negative cumulative effect when looking at the impact on other Federal laws such as the requirement for 404 permits under the Clean Water Act. As a consequence, the U.S. District Court ruling in October of 1999 regarding the definition of ''region'' required the Corps of Engineers to put a statewide moratorium on all pending permits. We were then forced to put on hold nearly a billion dollars of construction projects in Arizona.
    A project in Tucson, Arizona offers another example. This was based on the designation as a centerline of the highway. A simple culvert job, which is a replacement of a single structure, required on one side of the road a nationwide permit and on the other side of the road an individual permit. The same structure, the same individual structure, two separate permitting processes.
    Another project, a pavement preservation project, offers an astonishing example of unrealistic constraints placed on our States by these regulations.
     A project in the area of Alpine, Arizona was designated as both bald eagle and willow flycatcher habitat. Staggered nesting seasons for these species and a weather-related construction season leaves us with all of 15 days to complete this essential repaving project in this State.
 Page 40       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    I confess to you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, that I am not an expert on the nesting habits at the particular times of these species; however, I can assure you that I have never seen any of these birds build a nest on a state highway.
    The proposed regulations are contrary to congressional intent, exceed lawful authority, and substantially complicate rather than streamline the process. They demonstrate no corollary benefits and in fact would suggest a lack of good stewardship on the part of the administration.
    You certainly can sense our frustration with these issues. You recognized when you enacted TEA-21 the transportation projects are a critical component of our Nation's economic health and strength, materially affect our citizens' quality of life and the very safety of the public we collectively serve.
    Where in the proposed regulations are these trade-offs considered? Where are the human factors given equal consideration with environmental factors? Where are the corollary benefits identified?
    Do we tell a working mother who appealed to me that she must continue to spend another hour a day stuck in traffic rather than with her children because we have to delay implementation of critical projects?
    Do we tell volunteer Fire Chief Angel Gomez in Superior, Arizona, a man who responded to a crash at Gonzales Pass and found his 4-year old grandson had been killed in that incident, that we must spend 4 more year s and another $16 million to implement improvements on the U.S. 60 corridor? I hope not.
    Do we tell Jimmy Soto in Nogales and Mike Ortega in Douglas, Arizona that their children and grandchildren will continue to move away from these communities because we are not able to implement transportation improvements that will foster economic development in their communities, areas which suffer greater than 25 percent unemployment today?
 Page 41       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Do we tell Loretta Littlesalt that we will spend more time and more money determining if we can implement crucial transportation improvement projects, such as traffic signals, on the Navajo Nation while she continues to see members of her community suffer injuries and die in crashes in that area? Do we allow these proposed regulations to delay safety improvement projects that could save these lives and prevent these injuries?
    I hope not. I believe we have alternatives to them. We ask that you assist us in preventing the U.S. DOT from promulgating final rules and challenge them to address these issues and concerns as will be addressed in the AASHTO comments.
    Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to testify.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
    Ms. Hague.
    Ms. HAGUE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members, for allowing me to testify on behalf of counties across America, particularly the rural communities that Ms. Peters was alluding to.
    I am Jane Hague. I am President of the National Association of Counties and a member of the King County, Washington Council. I am here to testify today in support of the rulemaking by the Federal Highway Administration that implements changes in the surface transportation law allowing local officials, especially those in the rural areas, to have greater authority in statewide planning.
    I would like to express our sincere appreciation to Congressman Ney and Congressman Barcia for their sponsorship of the amendment to TEA-21 which provided for this rule, and to Chairman Shuster for his support and the work that he did on behalf of rural county involvement in statewide planning.
    A consistent theme of this Congress has been that local decisions are best made at the local level. As President of the National Association of Counties I, too, believe in that basic principle. The congressional intent of the passage of TEA-21 was clearly that local officials in areas outside of the metropolitan areas must have a role in transportation decision making in each State. In our rural areas no government is closer to the people than county government. County commissioners know their citizens and know the needs of their communities.
 Page 42       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    The National Association of Counties has a Rural Action Caucus. Too often I hear from members of that caucus that their views are not being reflected in the decisions being made within their State capitals. That is why Ney co-supports a strong rule that makes it clear to States that officials at the local level, especially those outside of our big cities, must have an important role in planning their transportation improvements. Although I happen to represent one of the largest counties in the United States, with over 1.8 million people, and we represent the City of Seattle and almost 40 suburban cities, I know firsthand the transportation problems that are based in large urban areas. But outside our metropolitan cities we also face a transportation crisis, as Ms. Peters alluded to. They must have transportation infrastructure for their own economic survival. The way for Congress to ensure that is to make certain that the Federal Government tells the States to include the voices of our rural counties within the decision making process.
    Second, there must be some teeth in that rule. States should be required to document their process of consultation with local officials and, if local officials don't believe they are being heard, there must be a method to raise that concern to either the FHWA or the FTA.
    Finally, I am sure you will agree with me on this one, Federal mandated size does not fit all. States should have the flexibility to design their own involvement programs as long as they consult with local officials and document that method. Whether it is Alabama or Alaska, Maryland or Mississippi, Washington or West Virginia, States and their locally elected officials should work together to design the process.
    In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the statewide transportation improvement programs must consult with our rural county officials. That consultation must be documented by the States and the process should be home grown, not one size fits all. Thank you.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
 Page 43       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. Plumeau.

    Mr. PLUMEAU. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and the members of the subcommittee, good morning. It is a privilege to address this subcommittee on the NPRMs on planning, ITS and environment.
    My name is Peter Plumeau and today I am representing the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, or AMPO. I am Chairman of the Policy Committee of the AMPO board and also Executive Director of the Chittenden County AMPO in Burlington, Vermont. I apologize that the Chairman of the AMPO board, Mayor John Mason of Fairfax, Virginia, and the AMPO Executive Director could not be here. Today is the first day of the AMPO annual conference, which is in Chicago this year, and I can assure you that the issues being discussed today will certainly be paramount in our proceedings.
    AMPO represents the interests of 341 metropolitan planning organizations, or MPOs, throughout the Nation, of which 163 are members of AMPO. AMPO members represent 85 percent of America's urban population. Our mission is to advance the transportation interest of urban areas and enhance the abilities of MPOs to achieve excellence in carrying out the responsibilities assigned to them by the Congress under ISTEA and, more recently, under TEA-21.
    MPOs are where the transportation priorities and policies set by the Congress are applied to regional transportation decisions made by local elected official in urbanized areas, working with transportation expert s and with input from all sectors of the community.
    Until recently AMPO was a program of the National Association of Regional Councils. In February 2000 by mutual agreement AMPO became a stronger, freestanding organization, recognizing that regional transportation issues have become so important that they need a national organization focusing on them full time.
 Page 44       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    AMPO has spent a great deal of time reviewing and analyzing the NPRMs, but has not yet finalized its position. We will do so during our Chicago meeting and submit them before the September 23rd deadline.
    We are working closely with AASHTO and APTA. There appears to be a great deal of common ground among our three organizations, and we anticipate developing a joint submission to U.S. DOT on many of the key issues of the NPRMs, again prior to the deadline of the 23rd.
    My comments today are directed primarily at the NPRM on planning and environment. AMPO supports the direction taken in the NPRMs and ITS. We have no major concerns about that NPRM, but we would appreciate more specifics on the role proposed for MPOs in the implementation of ITS architecture across the Nation.
    Now, regarding the NPRMs on planning and environment, let me first say that AMPO fully supports the intent behind those NPRMs and appreciates the tremendous amount of work that has gone into producing them. However, AMPO also believes that these regulations should not be implemented without rewriting geared toward minimizing the possibilities for confusion and conflict that would serve to undermine Congress' intent as embodied in TEA-21.
    One of the explicit goals of the NPRMs is to provide flexibility to States and MPOs. Flexibility is laudable in principle, particularly since MPOs differ greatly in size, scope and expertise, but too much flexibility reduces clarity and leads to confusion.
    AMPO believes that implementation of the NPRMs without changes aimed at providing more clarity and specifics will, first, cause confusion, delay, extra expense and potential for litigation on project and plan development; second, lead to inconsistent application of regulations across different U.S. DOT regions; third, significantly increase MPO costs; and, fourth, undermine achievement of some of the objectives of the NPRMs.
    In particular, AMPO believes that the lack of clarity is an important issue in two key areas: Environmental justice, known particularly as EJ, and the merging of the MIS and National Environmental Policy Act processes. AMPO is also concerned about two additional areas, cooperative revenue forecasting and the creation of annual listings of obligation projects. Based on the experiences of many MPOs nationwide, the NPRMs would give MPOs responsibilities for conducting tasks without necessarily requiring all the involved parties to generate the information needed to carry them out. The NPRM on planning therefore needs to be modified to provide mechanisms to ensure that MPOs get the information they need to carry out the responsibilities assigned to them in TEA-21.
 Page 45       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    I have with me more specific written comments on each of those four areas—environmental justice, the merging of the MIS and NEPA processes, cooperative revenue forecasting, and annual listings of obligated projects—and these have been included in the subcommittee handouts today, I believe.
    Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks on behalf of AMPO. I again thank you for the opportunity to address these important issues before the subcommittee. I will be happy to answer any questions you have later.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
    Mr. Millar.

    Mr. MILLAR. Mr. Chairman, it is good to be here, and let me build on Mr. Rahall's earlier comments, how much we have enjoyed working with you, and no matter where your career takes you in the Congress, transit will be there. So we will see you again, but it has been a pleasure and you should feel good about all you have accomplished in this committee.
    Let me start my comments by saying that because we have not yet submitted our comments to FHWA and FTA and we are still considering them, we have not reached final conclusions on many issues, so I must certainly say that we may change some of what I am going to be describing to you today based on our members' comments. However, a number of principles are clear and I do believe will be in our final comments, and of course we will supply the committee with our comments when they are finalized.
    I must say that there is a genuine diversity of opinions among our members. As you know, we have some 1300 members from all over the country, but there is no disagreement that we need to complete major capital projects as quickly as possible. But we do believe that a good, clear planning process can prevent later problems and can add value to the projects without inhibiting progress. We think that consideration of environmental concerns can be done in conjunction with the project development process without undue delay. We strongly believe that clarity in the planning regulations is critical and that uncertainty of requirements is the bigger problem in the project development process.
 Page 46       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    As I said, while we haven't finished all our comments yet, there are six principles that our comments will embody. First, the regulations must ensure and support multimodal planning, as the Congress has called for time and time again. We must make sure that public transportation is an integral part of that multimodal process.
    Second, the planning process must serve the decision making at all levels. It shouldn't just be a Federal requirement, but it should generate good data, good information that is helpful, local, State, regionally and nationally.
    Third, the regulations must promote a balance among economic, mobility, environmental, human and other objectives, no small task, but that is what the planning process needs to be about.
    APTA does support environmental streamlining, but we want to make sure one man's streamlining doesn't create bias against another man's mode or project. So we want it to be as much mode neutral as possible and that it not eliminate viable transportation options prematurely from the process.
    Fifth, regulation should ensure early and continuous collaboration among the planning and the modal implementing agencies, and we do note that the proposed regulations go to great lengths to talk about what that cooperation and collaboration must be, and we think that is a very important feature, and we are glad that it is clear on what it needs to be there.
    Finally, APTA supports the early and continuing stakeholder participation, particularly those stakeholders that are mentioned in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
    This is a tall order to accomplish these six things, let alone all the other comments you have heard today, but we do commend the DOT for their efforts in this area. We do believe they will take our comments seriously and we do believe the final rules will find a good balance among all that you have heard today.
    We do emphasize that the project development process has to balance out a lot of different things. It has to balance out economic growth and development, congestion mitigation, mobility, accessibility, environmental protection, and the whole host of national goals that the Congress has laid out over the years for those of us who toil in transportation areas. We think that these rules can meet that challenge, though, and we will certainly be working to see it happens. Many of our members believe that Americans who use public transportation or would like to use public transportation are looking to these kinds of rules to assure that their interests get a fair shake at the State and local level as projects are developed.
 Page 47       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Let me turn to some very specific requirements before I close my testimony. Let me comment on the issue of the MIS as a separate requirement. APTA believes that FHWA and FTA have been overzealous in their interpretation of what the Congress meant in section 1308 of TEA-21. APTA contends that consideration of multimodal alternatives must continue to be one of the ''basic remaining requirements'' of the planning process. Further, by making application of the planning components optional, as is stated repeatedly in the preamble to the regulations, FHWA and FTA have effectively removed MISs, or corridor planning, which often includes a strong multimodal approach, which should be require d by the planning process, and instead shifts it out of the planning process and only in project development. We think this is too late in the process. In doing so, we believe FHWA and FTA have turned the statutory language on its head. Instead of eliminating a statutory requirement, they have effectively eliminated the entire requirement for a multimodal process. I don't believe this was their intent but we believe this will be their result.
    We are particularly concerned about the proposed regulatory approach because we feel that these regulations must maintain and foster multimodal planning, thus preserving the spirit of the TEA-21 legislation.
    On the issue of environmental streamlining, we certainly would like to see the process streamlined where it can be and we are fearful that the proposed regulations are minimal and they really don't make substantial improvements, and I think we have heard some examples of that earlier today on this. The rules do clean up some areas where there has been some lack of clarity, and that is good, but we suspect that they could do a better job in that area.
    Much of the opportunity for streamlining is based on enhanced cooperation among the Federal facilities and as, Mr. Chairman, you commented to an earlier person testifying, there is always turf issues there. We think a lot more work needs to go into that. We think when those Federal agencies cooperate it can make a big difference. In a prior life in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, I saw the benefits of having the Federal agencies cooperate very closely as we moved our West Busway through its environmental and planning processes. That very successful project opened last Friday and it would be still years away if those Federal agencies had not cooperated. So we would think it ought to put more emphasis in that area.
 Page 48       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Finally, in the difficult area of environmental justice and equity, APTA is a strong supporter of these considerations in the decision making process and we do have concerns though that again the lack of clarity of what is meant, what is required will lead to potential lawsuits that will delay projects, that will cost additional money, and we are very concerned about that. Again, we think being clear about what is intended and what is meant so that all who are involved in the process know what needs to be done is the right way to go in this area. We do believe the proposed regulations have some mixing of a little bit of Title VI, a little bit of ADA, a little bit of the President's Executive Order on Environmental Justice, and we think instead of mixing these things we must be very clear about what the requirements are and what is necessary in that area.
    Finally, we are very concerned that unless it is made clear how much data needs to be collected to properly deal with these issues that we could wind up with each transportation agency becoming in essence a kind of mini census, having to gather tons and tons of data for really very little benefit. Our smaller members are particularly concerned that this could add great burdens to their projects. So we think that Environmental Justice Executive Order, Title VI, and ADA provide different types of protection to different groups, and we fear that by intertwining them in this regulation the ends will not be well served and instead will result in legal confusion. So we would believe that they ought to adhere to the existing language of existing regulation and executive order wherever possible.
    Finally, Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. We thank you for your leadership and the opportunity to be here today. We will be happy to supply additional information as you might need.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
    Mr. Stowe.
    Mr. STOWE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify here today. My name is Tim Stowe, and I am Vice President of Transportation and Planning with Anderson & Associates. Today I am representing the American Consulting Engineers Council, where I chair their Transportation Committee.
 Page 49       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    ACEC is made of up about 5700 firms that work across the Nation, that provide the environmental, planning, engineering and protection work as well as transportation services throughout the country.
    Our involvement in environmental streamlining is not new. We have a long track record working on this subject with the Congress and the administration, but we are here today about the notice of proposed rules and its impact on our work to deliver transportation projects in a timely fashion.
    Working as professionals on behalf of our clients, our member firms have experienced firsthand the compelling need to reduce and hopefully eliminate duplicate efforts, overly complicated and cumbersome process es, and inordinate delays that have become obstacles to the timely delivery of transportation projects.
    Within our ACEC Transportation Committee we have reviewed and analyzed the proposed regulations and we can only conclude that the regulations as they are currently written are a missed opportunity.
    TEA-21 provided the unique opportunity to accelerate the planning process associated with transportation projects as well as the environmental process, including the permit process associated with the environmental work to ensure that we have the continued high quality transportation system here in our country that is so important to our economy as well as our mobility.
    All the while the intent was to protect the environment and we certainly concur and agree with the protection of the environment. However, regrettably and much to our dismay, the proposed regulations, unless there is some drastic revisions, do not take advantage of the unique opportunity of TEA-21 to streamline and simplify the planning and environmental processes.
    The proposed regulations fail to follow clear directions set forth by Congress and in fact seem to steer the process away from streamlining and simplifying.
 Page 50       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    The proposed regulations not only miss the opportunity to address the general intent of environmental streamlining, they also fail to address very specific provisions of TEA-21 relating to dispute resolutions, time lines and concurrent reviews. While the narrative accompanying the regulations discusses environmental streamlining, the regulations themselves are virtually silent on this issue. It is difficult to understand how the proposed regulations could fail to support and amplify the intent of and the specific provisions of TEA-21, and instead move further away from achieving the goal of streamlining the environmental review process.
    The attempt to establish a relevant linkage between planning process and NEPA environmental review and project development process, while laudable, falls way short in many respects. The application of a mandatory MIS type effort in metropolitan areas is completely contrary to TEA-21. Furthermore, the failure to provide any assurance that if project level environment work, such as an MIS type study or preliminary purpose of need statement, is carried out in the planning phase that it will carry any weight and avoid revisiting in the NEPA process is glaring.
    Mr. Chairman, ACEC has been and continues to be willing to work with your committee and the Federal Highway Administration officials in developing the kind of regulations envisioned in TEA-21 and desired by the citizens of the country, regulations that will allow needed transportation projects vital to our economy's continued growth to move forward expeditiously and economically.
    ACEC is asking for changes to the proposed regulations, because we feel it is the right thing for our country, and by promoting concurrent environmental approvals we have chosen to emphasize broad societal interest over individual corporate gain.
    ACEC realizes there has been a considerable amount of work that has gone into these regulations. However, we feel that they do fall short of meeting the goals that are set forward in TEA-21, and we urge the agency to stop the rulemaking process and amend their proposals so that the goals of TEA-21 can be achieved.
 Page 51       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    We stand ready to assist in that effort, and we thank you for inviting us here today.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Rahall, any questions?
    Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, just to follow up on something Administrator Wykle said, that you know there is this storm out there and all these comments and I have receive d a lot of information in opposition to these regs, but has the Administrator? Have you all communicated to the Administrator or to FHWA in the comment period or have you put in writing your concerns to the Administrator?
    Mr. STOWE. Mr. Rahall, in the case of the American Consulting Engineers Council, we are preparing our comments. They are currently in a draft form and they will be submitted by the deadline that has been set forward today.
    Mr. WARNE. Yes. Congressman, the AASHTO organization, when the Federal Highway Administration was doing their outreach session right after the passage of TEA-21, we participated in those and provided comments, both verbal and then we prepared written comments in the form of white papers, on many of the issues that are considered here in these regulations. That all happened before the regulations were drafted, and at this point we are now in the process of submitting to them our written comments to the draft regulations.
    Mr. RAHALL. Okay. Anybody else want to comment?
    Mr. PLUMEAU. The Association of MPOs undertook a similar process to AASHTO in terms of pre-NPRM white papers and analysis, participation in the outreach sessions. We are also in the process of preparing our final comments for submission by the deadline. We also, I should say, consult regularly with FHWA and FTA on a one-to-one level, and I believe they are well aware of our expressed concerns at this point.
    Ms. HAGUE. Our counties have been urged to respond individually, and we will have a collective response before the deadline.
 Page 52       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. RAHALL. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
    Any questions, Mr. Duncan?
    Mr. DUNCAN. Well, just very briefly, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize. I had several other meetings and was not able to get here until just a few minutes ago. So I did not get to hear all the witnesses, but one of the things I do in the Congress is chair the Aviation Subcommittee, and we had a hearing similar to this back, oh, I don't know, a year or so ago, maybe more, and the big impression or the big thing I remember from that hearing is that we had a panel similar to this and they estimated that all the aviation projects cost roughly three times what they should or what they would have just simply because of the environmental rules and regulations. In other words, a runway that would have cost 50 million probably cost a 150 million because of all the extra work and the paperwork and so forth, and I noticed Mr. Millar, I got here in time to hear him say something about tons and tons of facts and figures and details with very little benefit.
    I will just ask anybody on the panel. Is it similar on your projects? Do you think that the costs are double or triple what they would be? Anybody want to comment? Mr. Millar.
    Mr. MILLAR. Yes. I would comment, Mr. Duncan. I am not familiar with any transit-related project where the costs have doubled or tripled because of the environmental and planning requirements. I am certainly aware of projects that become very controversial and the data collection seems endless, and my comments went to that fact. If the regulations, the final regulations aren't clear on exactly what has to be collected, then transportation planning agencies and transportation project organizations could be required to collect forever, it would seem like, and that is my great fear. It is the time delay, but certainly major cost increases are inevitable if there is time delay and if these cause time delay.
 Page 53       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. DUNCAN. I remember another hearing in this subcommittee in which we had, now that I think about it, where we had people telling about major highway projects that had been delayed for years because of the environmental rules and regulations.
    Is that your own experience, Mr. Warne?
    Mr. WARNE. Yes. I will speak on behalf of AASHTO on that. In fact, the current regulations and process that essentially were the genesis for section 1309 of TEA-21, which you passed, essentially were causing excessive delays and excessive costs. We were hoping that the rule that would be promulgated out of section 1309 would have fixed that and what we are here telling you today is we believe the rule as it is currently drafted would add additional costs and additional time to that process. We believe we can be good stewards of the environment but we can also deliver transportation facilities in an efficient, effective manner, but we need some help here with the regulations that we are working under.
    Mr. DUNCAN. Well, I think the thing that concerns me is when you are talking about major highway projects or major airport projects or whatever, a lot of these projects there is big money involved, I mean real big money, and if you start driving up costs on projects that are already extremely expensive in the first place and delay them for years, on some of these highway projects lives are lost because of it, but then also when you drive up all these costs, you know, it hurts the poor and the working people. And I have always noticed that these Sierra Club members and these environmentalists, I saw where the Sierra Club, they had an average income of about four times the average American. They brag about that to their advertisers. They are always real wealthy people who don't seem to be hurt by all these rules and regulations and red tape. But the people they are hurting are the lower income and the people who—when aviation projects are exploding costs and fewer people can fly, and the same thing happens on these road projects, it hurts the lower income and lower middle income people most of all, and I think it is kind of sad.
 Page 54       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
    Mr. Horn.
    Mr. HORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have enjoyed this panel. You have done a lot of thorough work and let me ask you. We have heard from Department of Transportation officials that the interagency planners and all that wrote these proposed rules relied on outreach with a variety of stakeholders. So I would like to go right down the line. You might have heard earlier, I asked the Administrator did he consult various people prior to putting those regulations in the Federal Register. Usually they are cast in stone once you get them there.
    How about it, Mr. Warne, were you consulted?
    Mr. WARNE. Congressman, we participated in the outreach sessions. We also provided white papers on the subject of environmental streamlining, many subjects, subcategories, and we have met individually with officials of the Federal Highway Administration to make our input known.
    Mr. HORN. So you were consulted prior to them going to Federal Register?
    Mr. WARNE. We participated and gave them our input.
    Mr. HORN. How about you, Ms. Peters?
    Ms. PETERS. Yes, we also were consulted and we did give substantive comments. Regrettably, they did not make it into the final version of the rules. In fact, we met as recently as both March and May with Federal highway and Federal transit officials to discuss these various issues.
    Mr. HORN. Ms. Hague.
    Ms. HAGUE. Yes. We have been consulted and all along the way.
 Page 55       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. HORN. Mr. Plumeau.
    Mr. PLUMEAU. Yes. The Association of MPOs was consulted and developed a white paper that was submitted.
    Mr. HORN. As long as I am questioning you, Mr. Plumeau, do me a favor. I grew up on Chittenden Pass, and I have always wondered who Chittenden was and you are from Vermont. So who was he?
    Mr. PLUMEAU. Thomas Chittenden was the first governor of the State of Vermont when Vermont became the 14th State.
    Mr. HORN. He must have come to California at an early time then. He left the snow.
    Mr. Millar, what about consultation prior to getting them in the regs?
    Mr. MILLAR. Very similar to what AASHTO reported to you. We participated in the national outreach sessions, prepared white papers, met formally and informally with staffs, so, yes, we were consulted.
    Mr. HORN. Mr. Stowe, how about you?
    Mr. STOWE. Yes, sir. We at ACEC participated in the outreach sessions, prepared white papers and written comments and have met individually with staff of FHWA during the period, yes.
    Mr. HORN. Now with the Administrator we brought up the question of why shouldn't some projects be grandfathered so you don't have to go back to the beginning now. How do you feel about that? Just run right down until my five minutes goes.
    Mr. WARNE. We believe there would be merit to grandfathering projects. It would be very disruptive to change the process midstream on many of the projects that are ongoing right now.
Ms. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, I would certainly agree and we have had projects that have been routed back and through duplicative processes that again lives are lost while we are waiting to do these things.
 Page 56       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Ms. HAGUE. We would be supportive.
    Mr. PLUMEAU. We would be supportive.
Mr. MILLAR. We think it is essential. We would support.
    Mr. STOWE. We feel the same way, that it is paramount that this be a part of the regulations.
    Mr. HORN. Now, to what degree have all of you put together the cost based on your own jurisdiction and your own work and are those being filed in answer to the Register? What would you have to do to look at the regulatory costs of does this set of regulations really simplify things or does it make them worse, because the whole purpose of the conference in TEA-21 was to simplify them.
    Mr. WARNE. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, the AASHTO States, what we are getting is input from the individual States and what we are seeing is without exceptions States are suggesting that this new regulation would add literally years to many of the projects. The estimates are anywhere from 5- to $10 million in the State of Montana in increased cost s and personnel issues, to States like Illinois and Wisconsin where numbers are in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
    Ms. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, Congressman, our estimates are that it would take twice as long and cost twice as much, actually just doubling the cost to do a simple environmental impact statement.
    Ms. HAGUE. NACo's various policies, steering committees are weighing up the effect of additional regulations, particularly environmental regulations, on specific projects and we can provide you with that information.
    Mr. HORN. Thank you. Mr. Plumeau.
    Mr. PLUMEAU. Yes, sir. In the NPRM on ITS specifically, the U.S. DOT has estimated an increased cost of I believe $13.5 million over 10 years for MPOs nationally with regard to the ITS architecture. We have not as an organization attempted to quantify costs beyond that. However, we do feel that in the areas of environmental justice and the environmental provisions the potential, because of the lack of clarity in the rules, potential for virtually endless data collection requirements being imposed on MPOs is very real, and we are extremely concerned about the costs of resources that would be associated with that.
 Page 57       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. HORN. Mr. Millar.
    Mr. MILLAR. We have not tried to quantify the costs. We think that is very difficult to do, but we are concerned about delay and, as I said earlier, very concerned about the endless data collection and delay that could arise from that process.
    Mr. HORN. Mr. Stowe.
    Mr. STOWE. We have not tried to quantify costs. However, we have looked at additional time and we estimate there could be anywhere from 12 to 24 months. For an organization whose members are paid by the hours that we provide, it would seem logical that we would be later than this. However, we see the system as broke and it needs some corrective action. We are very concerned that these rules don't provide the correction that is needed in the course we are heading.
    Mr. HORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time.
    Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Maybe just to follow up a little bit. I guess your testimony is that you were all consulted and so you have had your best shot and they have come out with their proposed rules and you are not pleased and what, if anything, should we do about it? Should we let the process go forward or in fact do you think the people who are saying that this will add materially to the cost and time of maintaining our transportation infrastructure are right or are they blowing smoke? This is serious business, and we don't want to needlessly try to interfere with the process as a Congress, but on the other hand, if we are talking about what some of the States have projected, this would be a devastating blow to certainly the spirit of TEA-21 and to maintaining our standard of living and public safety and economic efficiency in the United States because we would chew up a large and a growing percentage of resources in paperwork and discussion rather than in actually doing something in the real world to speed people safely to their destination.
    Could you at all comment on that as to what you think, if anything, we should be doing besides looking with growing alarm at the situation?
 Page 58       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. WARNE. Mr. Chairman, I will comment on behalf of the AASHTO States. In fact, one of the concerns we had, we had that opportunity to provide our white paper and have all this input and unfortunately what we see in the form of the regulations that have been proposed is we see very little evidence that our input was actually taken and used in the promulgation of these rules, and the States frankly, as I meet with the different CEOs, feel as if they have been ignored.
    And so what I would suggest is the opportunity for us to go back to the drawing board with U.S. DOT, FHWA, FTA and actually go through the rule s and try to essentially fulfill the intent of the Congress with this provision of the law and really come up with something substantive. We have a great opportunity here. You have provided all of us a great opportunity to do something good, to deliver projects faster and more efficiently and we would like to see that that is accomplished.
    Mr. PETRI. Any other comments?
    Ms. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, I would certainly agree with Mr. Warne's comments and I think the point that you made earlier is a very important point. There certainly are major projects, projects that do have substantial environmental impact s and projects that do cross planning boundaries that should have the time and attention that they deserve taken to them. However, I would suggest that the 80/20 rule in terms of 80 percent of the projects are not projects that fall within that realm and to expand the issue of categorical exclusion or conformity acceptance that would allow the States to move forward under agreed upon procedures to the majority of the projects, such as these pavement projects, such as these safety projects, minor project s, and we reserve the more complex procedure to those projects that warrant it. I would suggest a substantial rewrite of the rules that would allow that to happen and your assistance in ensuring that those rules do not become final until we have that effort.
    Ms. HAGUE. Mr. Chairman, I applaud your desire to streamline the regulations so that local government can address the transportation issues that are basically one of the top three issues that we are facing nationally. Clearly, there are environmental concerns with costs and regulation. We would urge the Congress to take a look at the fiscal impacts and the time delays. But don't throw the baby out with the bath water. There are some good things here too that require all of us to be working together on planning and sharing the costs.
 Page 59       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    Mr. PLUMEAU. AMPO, as I said earlier, fully supports the intent of the NPRMs. However, again as I said earlier, we are deeply concerned about the lack of clarity and specificity in many areas that we believe could result in MPOs being caught up in endless cycles of planning analysis and data collection and frankly opening the door to potential litigation and legal questions and challenges that would grind the process to a halt in many cases. In addition, we are concerned that if the NPRMs are issued as currently written it will necessitate further amendments or guidance being issue d by U.S. DOT in response to the lack of clarity as we go along which will just add more complications to the process.
    Mr. MILLAR. We don't believe you need to go back to the beginning on this. We do believe that if the final regulations follow the principles I outlined in my statement and if they put a lot of emphasis on clarity so that we all know what is expected of us the complete rewrite is not necessary. One of the great things about our system of government is the Congress will be there to watch over it and we certainly will keep you fully informed of what we find under the final regulations when they are issued, and you have always been great in the past, as you are with these hearings, to help us put light on situations that are of concern to our constituents and your constituents, and our thought would be let us let the regulatory process go forward, see what the final rules are and, if necessary, at that point have the Congress become more involved.
    Mr. STOWE. Mr. Chairman, we feel the rules as they are currently written have some significant flaws, and if it does not get through to a total rewrite, it certainly needs to have changes to the extent where an additional comment period is offered to the public for us to review some of the things that have been addressed by this panel and have been previously spoken by members. We think there are three key items that can make this successful, one of which Ms. Peters just mentioned, and that is an increased use of certification acceptance.
 Page 60       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    We are seeing around the country these DOTs and environmental groups are working together in regional partnerships successfully, and that has happened prior to these rules coming out. So we know there is some evidence that this can work, and the use of certification acceptance or programmatic agreements where the States can take on more of this responsibility we see as one of the key instruments in being able to help in streamlining the process of environmental reviews.
    Additionally, measuring performance through peer reviews we think is an important part, where the DOTs, any environmental agencies can evaluate each other and determine if they are doing a good job and produce some form of an annual report that indicates how well they are doing.
    And certainly, last but not least is the use of a dispute resolution mechanism which was called for in TEA-21, which is missing from the rules that we have seen.
    So we think those three items are very, very critical to the success of streamlining, but it all goes back to the relationships between the people and their willingness to work together.
    Mr. PETRI. Well, I think—you are talking about an additional comment period from the public. The Administrator said that he extended the comment period until 23rd of September. Are you talking in addition to, beyond that?
    Mr. STOWE. No. If the changes that we are hearing are going to be consider ed by the FHWA are indeed going to be implemented, we feel like the public should be offered another opportunity to review that revision and to comment on those revisions.
    Mr. PETRI. That would normally follow, I would think. In any event there has been a lot of food for thought. I have to say that I have a lot of confidence in Administrator Wykle and his colleagues in the Department of Transportation. I do hope that they will take all of your comments seriously. I know they are not the only decision makers in the process but they are the key ones here, and hopefully, as you suggest, things will take a turn for the better, and if they don't we will have to or whoever our successors are will have to take firm and decisive action in the near future, but I guess we thank you very much for your testimony and for the concern that you have expressed on the part of your respective constituencies, and we are eager to work with you.
 Page 61       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 2  
    If there are additional ideas or comments, if we can be helpful, you know, please let us know, and with that, the hearing stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

    [insert here]