You asked in particular that I address issues related to Section 1309 of TEA-21. I will be happy to do so. As you know, CEQ worked closely with the Committee in shaping the provisions of Section 1309. Many of the provisions codify in either letter or spirit CEQ regulations implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Our regulations were designed with the goal of reducing delay in the environmental review process. Specifically, Section 1309 mirrors CEQ regulations in viewing the environmental review process under NEPA as a vehicle for integrating other required environmental reviews and analyses related to the proposal. Concurrent integration of all environmental requirements is a very important part of fulfilling my goal of making sure that the NEPA process is used to achieve informed decisionmaking in an efficient manner. It is simply not possible to make either wise or speedy decisions when essential parts of the analytical process are undertaken sequentially. We are quite pleased that the legislation incorporates this central, overarching mandate. I would add that in addition to integrating required federal reviews, CEQ strongly encourages, where possible, integration of required reviews under other relevant state and local laws. In fact, TEA-21 specifically allows state agencies to do so.
Section 1309 also includes a specific provision to require the early identification of all federal agencies, and, in certain instances, state agencies, with jurisdiction by law over issues related to a proposed project. CEQ regulations encourage the designation of agencies with jurisdiction by law as cooperating agencies. Cooperating agencies can participate in the NEPA process as soon as the identification of a proposal has occurred and they can also assume responsibility for preparation of a portion of the analyses within their area of expertise. The CEQ regulations provide for the designation of state, local and tribal governments as cooperating agencies. CEQ is currently circulating draft guidance that would address the role non-federal agencies as cooperating agencies on a more routine basis. This would compliment the Interagency Memorandum of Understanding in circulation for signature now.
Section 1309 also mandates the establishment of timelines, in consultation with all involved federal agencies, and incorporates the criteria set forth in the CEQ regulations for determining appropriate time limits for projects. We continue to believe this is a much wiser approach than attempting to mandate one timeline for all highway and mass transit proposals.
One of the most innovative features of Section 1309 is the provision that allows for the Secretary, at the request of a State, allow federal-aid highway funds to be used to meet the provisions for enhanced environmental streamlining. CEQ has, for years, worked with agencies to promote the type of integration called for by TEA-21, and we know that there are many barriers to be overcome in achieving complete integration. Prominent among obstacles is lack of resources. If no one is available to review a draft document or travel funds are not available to uttered an interagency meeting, the result is often further delay and frustration down the road. I appreciate concerns that use of this provision be carefully monitored, and I look forward to reviewing its implementation.
Finally, I know that the Department of Transportation will be working with other agencies to develop a detailed plan for how the dispute resolution provisions of Section 1309 will be implemented. As you may know, the CEQ regulations provide for a dispute resolution process triggered by federal interagency disputes that have not been resolved by the time the final environmental impact statement is published. 40 CFR 1504 et. seq. However, we strongly encourage resolution of disputes well before that point in time, and I am hopeful that the strong mandate in Section 1309 will avoid the need for formal dispute resolution at the end of the process. I would also note that Congress recently established the U.S. institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution under the auspices of the Udall Foundation. The Institute opened its doors for business last fall, and its expertise may be useful in helping to craft early and effective dispute resolution.
Mr. Chairman, let me assure you that CEQ is ready and eager to help the Department of Transportation and other agencies implement the provisions of Section 1309. The philosophy and mandate of the section mirror our own view of how the environmental review process should work. I have made a commitment to increase our involvement in this area, and we are participating in interagency discussions on moving forward to implementation. We will also be working directly with the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Authority as they undertake the first revision of their NEPA procedures since 1987.
I want to temper my enthusiasm with the acknowledgement that while few people would dispute the desirability of the purposes underlying Section 1309, achievement is sometimes slow and difficult. It is, however, I believe possible. There has already been some notable progress achieved towards this direction. I understand that a representative from Washington State testified about progress made toward environmental streamlining at the hearing you held on April 29. Another example of outstanding progress can be found in Pennsylvania, where the state Departments of Transportation, Environmental Protection, Agriculture and the Fish and Boat Commission, Historic and Museum Commission and Turnpike Commission have joined together with the Federal Highway Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in an extremely impressive and successful effort to substantially reduce both the time and paperwork associated with environmental review processes for highway projects in that State. Those efforts were recognized by the Vice President in 1996 when the many agencies listed received a Hammer Award for their work in merging the reviews required under NEPA and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. On the federal front, I would also note the very recent publication of the new regulations implementing the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), published as final regulations just three weeks ago. Those regulations specifically provide that the NEPA process can be used to satisfy the requirements of Section 106.