Environmental Provisions in Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation: TEA-LU (H.R. 3) and SAFETEA (S. 732)

Environmental Provisions in Surface Transportation Reauthorization Legislation: TEA-LU (H.R. 3) and SAFETEA (S. 732)

Order Code RL32454
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Environmental Provisions in Surface Transportation
Reauthorization Legislation: TEA-LU (H.R. 3) and
SAFETEA (S. 732)
Updated June 8, 2005
Linda G. Luther
Environmental Policy Analyst
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Environmental Provisions in Surface Transportation
Reauthorization Legislation: TEA-LU and SAFETEA
Summary
During the 108th Congress, both the House and Senate passed legislation to
reauthorize federal highway, highway safety, and transit programs (H.R. 3550 and
S. 1072). Conferees failed to reach an agreement on final reauthorization legislation
before adjournment of the 108th Congress. Early in the 109th Congress, legislation
was introduced with essentially the same policy provisions as those proposed in the
108th Congress. The House passed its bill (H.R. 3), the Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (TEA-LU), on March 10, 2005. On May 17, 2005, the Senate
passed its amended version of H.R. 3 (previously S. 732), the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005 (SAFETEA). The bills
now go to conference.
During the reauthorization process, certain environmental issues have garnered
significant attention from both Members of Congress and interested stakeholders
(e.g., state transportation agencies, transportation construction organizations, and
environmental groups). This attention is due to both the impact that surface
transportation projects can have on the environment (and, possibly, the costs
associated with addressing those impacts) and the impact that compliance with
environmental requirements can have on project delivery.
Generally, environmental provisions in the proposed legislation would to do
one of the following: authorize funding to eliminate, control, mitigate, or minimize
regulated environmental impacts associated with surface transportation programs or
projects; or specify procedures required to be undertaken to comply with certain
environmental requirements. In particular, both bills include provisions that would
change the procedures the Department of Transportation (DOT) would be required
to follow to comply with the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.) and the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.).
Legislation currently under consideration would reauthorize surface
transportation programs through FY2009. Legislation authorizing surface
transportation programs for FY1998-FY2003, the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century (TEA-21, P.L. 105-178), expired on September 30, 2003. In accordance
with a series of extension bills, all existing surface transportation programs continue
to operate according to provisions of TEA-21 while Congress considers
reauthorization proposals. The most recent extension, the Surface Transportation
Extension Act of 2005 (H.R. 2566), extended funding for surface transportation
programs until June 30, 2005. This report will be updated.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Issues Regarding the Clean Air Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Conformity with Transportation Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
The CMAQ Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Legislative Proposals Regarding Air Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Proposed Changes to Conformity Demonstration Requirements . . . . . 6
CMAQ Funding Authorization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Use of HOV Lanes for Hybrid Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Clean Fuels Formula Grant Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Issues Regarding Environmental Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Legislative Proposals Regarding Environmental Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Streamlining Environmental Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Revisions to “Section 4(f)” Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Additional Environmental Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Expansion of Environmental Projects Eligible for Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Funding for Surface Transportation Research Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Advanced Vehicle Technologies Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Surface Transportation Environment and Planning Cooperative
Research Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
List of Tables
Table 1. Legislative Provisions Regarding Conformity Proposed in the
Senate and House Bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Environmental Provisions in Surface
Transportation Reauthorization Legislation:
TEA-LU and SAFETEA
Introduction
This report discusses legislative provisions regarding environmental issues in
House and Senate bills reauthorizing surface transportation programs through
FY2009. These programs involve federal highway, highway safety, and transit
programs undertaken by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT’s) Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The
House passed its bill (H.R. 3), the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(TEA-LU), on March 10, 2005. On May 17, 2005, the Senate passed its amended
version of H.R. 3 (previously approved by the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee as S. 732), the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation
Equity Act of 2005 (SAFETEA).1
During the reauthorization process, certain environmental issues have garnered
significant attention from both Members of Congress and interested stakeholders
(e.g., state transportation agencies, transportation construction organizations, and
environmental groups). This attention is due to both the impact that surface
transportation projects can have on the environment and the impact that compliance
with environmental requirements can have on project delivery.
Both the House and Senate bills include many provisions regarding the
environment. Generally, the provisions propose to do one of the following: authorize
funding to eliminate, control, mitigate, or minimize regulated environmental impacts
associated with a surface transportation program or project; or specify procedures
required to be undertaken to comply with certain environmental requirements. In
particular, both bills include provisions that would change the procedures DOT
would be required to follow to comply with the Clean Air Act and the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Authorization legislation for FY1998-FY2003, the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century (TEA-21, P.L. 105-178), expired on September 30, 2003. In
accordance with a series of extension bills, all existing surface transportation
programs continue to operate according to provisions of TEA-21 while Congress
1 With few exceptions, including the bill titles, provisions in H.R. 3 and S. 732 are identical
to those in transportation reauthorization legislation passed by the House (H.R. 3550) and
the Senate (S. 1072) during the 108th Congress. The most significant difference is in total
funding levels. For information about funding issues, see CRS report IB10138, Surface
Transportation: Reauthorization of TEA-21, by John W. Fischer.

CRS-2
considers reauthorization proposals. The most recent extension, the Surface
Transportation Extension Act of 2005 (H.R. 2566), extends funding for surface
transportation programs through June 30, 2005.
This report focuses on provisions of H.R. 3 (as passed by either the House or
the Senate) concerning environmental requirements that may affect federal funding
or delivery of surface transportation programs or projects. Specifically, this report
addresses proposed legislative provisions related to compliance with the Clean Air
Act and NEPA. Also included is an overview of selected environmental provisions
and issues that have gained attention from environmental and transportation
stakeholders.
Issues Regarding the Clean Air Act
One of the more obvious environmental impacts related to transportation is its
generation of air pollution, in particular “smog” and “soot.” Smog (ground-level
ozone) is not directly emitted from vehicles, but is formed by the reaction of nitrogen
oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), both of which are emitted
from vehicles in the presence of sunlight. Soot (particulate matter or PM) can be
generated from a variety of sources including the combustion of petroleum. If the
concentrations of soot and smog in the air, in addition to other pollutants, exceed
certain levels, they can have adverse effects on human health and the environment.
The Clean Air Act directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
regulate emissions of air pollutants. Of relevance to transportation is EPA’s authority
to establish emission standards, based on certain health and environmental criteria,
for ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), NOx, and PM.2 The National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS), subsequently established by EPA, specify allowable
concentrations and exposure limits for each “criteria pollutant.” A geographic area
that meets or exceeds the standard is considered to be in “attainment” for a particular
NAAQS; areas that do not meet a standard are in “nonattainment.”3 A “maintenance”
area is one that was previously in nonattainment, but is currently attaining the
NAAQS subject to a maintenance plan.4
2 Regulated particulates are either “coarse” (between 2.5 and 10 micrometers in diameter,
known as PM ) or “fine” (less than 2.5 micrometers, known as PM ). PM from
10
2.5
10
transportation sources may come from brake and tire wear, pavement wear, and other
vehicle degenerative processes. PM are emitted from combustion sources, such as diesel
2.5
engines. Fine particulates penetrate deeper into the lungs and remain lodged there, rather
than being exhaled, causing negative impacts on health. Also included on the list of criteria
pollutants are lead and sulfur dioxide. Transportation-related sources are not significant
sources of either of these pollutants.
3 For information on areas currently designated as in nonattainment, see EPA’s “Green
Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants,” available online at [http://www.epa.gov/
oar/oaqps/greenbk/index.html], as of June 8, 2005.
4 For a more extended discussion of issues regarding NAAQS, see CRS Report RL30853,
Clean Air Act: A Summary of the Act and Its Major Requirements.

CRS-3
The NAAQS for particulates, CO, NOx, and short-term (one-hour)
concentrations of ozone have been in effect since the 1970s. However, a more
stringent standard for ozone (an 8-hour concentration) and new standards for fine
particulates (PM ) go into effect this year. In April 2004, part or all of 474 counties
2.5
were designated as in nonattainment for the new ozone standard. In January 2005,
EPA announced that part or all of 225 counties were in nonattainment for PM
.5
2.5
The Clean Air Act requires states to develop a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
to demonstrate how they will implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS.6 The
SIP must include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, as
well as schedules and timetables for compliance with NAAQS, if applicable.
Compliance deadlines vary, depending on the severity of the pollution, but generally
a nonattainment area must demonstrate that it is making annual emission reductions
sufficient to reach attainment by the applicable deadline. If necessary, the SIP must
also include a “motor vehicle emissions budget,” which establishes a goal the state
must meet with regard to emissions from mobile sources such as cars, trucks, and
buses. States submit initial SIPs and subsequent revisions to EPA for approval.
The attainment of NAAQS and the development of SIPs are relevant to surface
transportation issues for a variety of reasons. For example, transportation agencies
must consider SIP goals in developing long- and short-term transportation plans.
Also, whether or not federal funds will be made available for a surface transportation
project, or possibly the level of those funds, may depend upon the degree of
nonattainment in a given area.7
Conformity with Transportation Planning
State and metropolitan transportation planners are required under the Clean Air
Act to ensure that long-range transportation plans and short-range Transportation
Improvement Programs (TIPs) conform with emission budgets established in a SIP.
Conformity is a way to ensure that federal funding and approval are given only to
transportation projects that are consistent with a state’s air quality goals.8
Specifically, Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act requires that planned transportation
projects will not:
! Cause new air quality violations;
! Worsen existing NAAQS violations; or
! Delay attainment of relevant NAAQS.
5 For more information, see CRS Report RL32345, Implementation of EPA’s 8-Hour Ozone
Standard; and CRS Report RL32431, Particulate Matter (PM2.5): National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) Implementation.
6 42 U.S.C. § 7410.
7 Such areas are classified according to the extent to which pollution levels exceed the
standards; designations include marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme.
8 For more information, see guidance from FHWA: Transportation Conformity: A Basic
Guide for State and Local Officials, June 19, 2000, available online at [http://www.
fhwa.dot.gov/environment/conformity/con_bas.htm], as of June 8, 2005.

CRS-4
Transportation plans look at a 20-year planning horizon and specify the long-
term goals for a metropolitan area’s transportation system. Before a new
transportation plan can be approved or a new project can receive federal funding, a
regional emissions analysis must demonstrate that the emissions projected in the plan
conform to the emissions budget established by the SIP. A new conformity
demonstration must be made for a transportation plan at least every three years.
A TIP identifies major highway and transit projects to be funded in the short
term (within the next three years) either in a metropolitan area (if that area is a
nonattainment or maintenance area) or on a statewide basis. Metropolitan TIPs must
be updated at least every two years, statewide TIPS at least every three years. TIPs
may also need to be updated when a new project is added. In practice, many large
urban areas obtain a new conformity determination for their TIPs on an annual basis.
Highway and transit projects cannot receive federal funds unless they are part of a
conforming TIP.9
While conformity has been required for more than a decade, its impact is
expected to grow in the next few years as a result of several factors, including the
new NAAQS for ozone and fine particulates; and the increase in emissions from
sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and other “light trucks.”10 These and other factors could
contribute to numerous metropolitan areas facing a temporary suspension of highway
and transit funds unless they impose sharp reductions in vehicle, industrial, or other
emissions. In 2003, the General Accounting Office (GAO, now called the
Government Accountability Office) reported that, over the previous six years, only
five metropolitan areas had to change transportation plans in order to resolve a
conformity lapse; but about one-third of local transportation planners surveyed
expected to have difficulty demonstrating conformity in the future.11
The CMAQ Program
In the year following the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA)12 directed the Secretary of
DOT to establish and implement a Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement (CMAQ) program. ISTEA authorized a total of $6.0 billion in funding
for surface transportation and other related projects that contribute to air quality
9 For a more extended discussion of the issues regarding conformity, see CRS Report
RL32106, Transportation Conformity Under the Clean Air Act: In Need of Reform?
10 SUVs, minivans, and pickup trucks, vehicles classified as “light trucks,” are regulated
less stringently than passenger cars. Their potential to impact air quality standards is tied
to the fact that sales of such vehicles represent a significant proportion of new vehicle sales
and that they potentially release greater levels of criteria pollutants than other passenger
cars. For more information, see CRS Report RS20298, Sport Utility Vehicles, Mini-Vans,
and Light Trucks: An Overview of Fuel Economy and Emissions Standards.
11 See U.S. GAO, Environmental Protection: Federal Planning Requirements for
Transportation and Air Quality Protection Could Potentially Be More Efficient and Better
Linked, GAO-03-581, April 2003.
12 ISTEA was the surface transportation authorization legislation for FY1991-FY1997.

CRS-5
improvements and congestion mitigation. In particular, it authorized funding for
programs and projects intended to reduce carbon monoxide (CO) and ozone.
ISTEA established a formula to apportion CMAQ funds largely based on a
state’s pollution reduction needs. The population of each area in a state that is a
nonattainment or maintenance area for ozone and/or CO is multiplied by a weighting
factor based on the level of nonattainment (e.g., moderate, serious, severe). States
with no maintenance or nonattainment areas are guaranteed at least 0.5 percent of
each year’s authorized CMAQ funds.
Under TEA-21, a total of $8.1 billion was authorized for the program for
FY1998-FY2003. TEA-21 also expanded the program to allow the use of CMAQ
funds for projects and programs intended to reduce PM . TEA-21 did not, however,
10
change the apportionment formula. Therefore, states with maintenance or
nonattainment areas for only PM receive the guaranteed minimum CMAQ funding.
10
Projects and programs eligible for CMAQ funds must come from a conforming
transportation plan and TIP. According to guidance from DOT, such projects must
also be expected to result in “tangible reductions” in carbon monoxide, ozone
precursor emissions, or PM .13 CMAQ funds cannot be used for projects that will
10
result in new highway capacity. Specific types of projects eligible for CMAQ funds
include, but are not limited to:
! Transportation control measures;
! Inspection and maintenance programs for auto emission controls;
! Extreme low-temperature cold start programs;
! The purchase of publicly owned, alternative fuel vehicles;
! Traffic flow improvements;
! Transit and public transportation programs;
! Pedestrian and bicycle facilities and programs;
! Travel demand management strategies;
! Outreach and rideshare programs; and
! Fare/fee subsidy programs.14
According to FHWA, the most effective CMAQ-funded projects tend to be large
in scope and to directly affect vehicle emissions, such as inspection and maintenance
programs.
CMAQ funds are available to a wide range of government and nonprofit
organizations, as well as private entities contributing to public-private partnerships.
Decisions regarding which projects or programs to fund are generally made through
the appropriate metropolitan and/or statewide transportation planning organizations,
13 DOT Program Guidance: “The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
(CMAQ) Program Under the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century (TEA-21),”
April 1999, available online at [http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/cmaq99gm.htm], as
of June 8, 2005.
14 Ibid.

CRS-6
and involve the state or local air quality agency. Also, FHWA or FTA field offices
are required to coordinate the project selection process with EPA.
Legislative Proposals Regarding Air Issues
As provisions in the transportation reauthorization legislation were debated,
several air quality-related issues were addressed by both Members of Congress and
interested stakeholders. This section discusses and compares general categories of
provisions in the House and/or Senate bills that relate, either directly or indirectly,
to attainment of the NAAQS.
Proposed Changes to Conformity Demonstration Requirements.
Both the House and Senate bills propose to amend Section 176 of the Clean Air Act
regarding how and when conformity demonstrations are made. Two issues of
particular concern to some Members of Congress have been (1) the differences
between the SIP, TIP, and long-range transportation planning cycles; and (2) the
absence of exemptions for certain types of projects, including those that could
improve air quality. A summary of legislative provisions regarding conformity is
provided in Table 1.
Table 1. Legislative Provisions Regarding Conformity
Proposed in the Senate and House Bills
Proposal
Senate
House
Change in
Currently, conformity determinations
Allows conformity
frequency of
for long-range transportation plans,
determinations for
conformity
metropolitan TIPs, and statewide TIPs
transportation plans and
determinations
must be completed every three years,
programs to be
for long-range
two years, and three years,
determined every four
transportation
respectively. The Senate bill would
years in nonattainment
plans and
require each of these planning
areas. [§ 1824(b)]
programs
documents to be updated every four
years in nonattainment areas and five
years in attainment and maintenance
areas. The minimum frequency within
which transportation conformity must
be demonstrated would be every four
years. Conformity determinations
must be made if triggered by SIP
actions or may be made if an MPO
chooses to update the plan or TIP
more frequently. [§ 1615(a)]
Change in
Reduces from 20 years the current
Continues the requirement
conformity
planning horizon over which
that conformity be
horizon for
conformity must be demonstrated. The
demonstrated through the
long-term
conformity horizons for transportation
last year of the
transportation
plans would extend for the longest of:
transportation plan except
plans
the first 10 years of the plan; the latest
in areas where the
year in the SIP’s motor vehicle
metropolitan planning
emissions budget; or the year after
organization (MPO) and

CRS-7
Proposal
Senate
House
completion of a regionally significant
air pollution control
project. [§ 1615(b)]
agency agree to reduce the
horizon. In such cases,
the conformity finding
may be based on the latest
of: the 10th year of a plan;
the attainment date of the
SIP; or the year after the
completion date of a
regionally significant
project, if approval is
required before
subsequent conformity
determination. [§ 1824(c)]
New
Requires a new conformity
Similar to provisions in
conformity
determination for transportation plans
Senate bill. [§ 1824(a)]
determination
or programs within two years of
requirements
EPA’s adequacy finding or approval
of a new motor vehicle emissions
budget. [§ 1615(b)]
Change in
Redefines a “transportation project,”
No comparable provision.
definition of a
for which a conformity determination
“transportation
would be required to include only
project”
regionally significant projects or a
project that makes a significant
revision to an existing project. [§
1615(b)]
Transition to
Allows areas that have not been in
No comparable provision.
new air quality
nonattainment before, and not been
standards for
required to demonstrate transportation
ozone and
conformity before, to use an emissions
PM
budget in a SIP for the prior standard
2.5
for the same pollutant, if one is
available. [§ 1616]
Waiver of
Allows transportation control
Similar to provisions in
conformity
measures to be substituted or added to
Senate bill. [§ 6001]
determination
a SIP without a new conformity
determination, if the substitute
measures achieve equivalent or greater
emissions reductions. [§ 1617]
Defining a
No comparable provision.
Allows 12-month grace
conformity
period after a conformity
lapse
lapse. [§ 1824(e)]
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on an analysis of
provisions of House- and Senate-passed versions of H.R. 3.

CRS-8
CMAQ Funding Authorization. Both the House and Senate bills would
retain the basic structure of the CMAQ program specified under TEA-21 and
increase its funding overall. The Senate bill would authorize a total of $10.8 billion
(§ 1101(5)) for FY2005-FY2009, and the House a total of $9.5 billion (§ 1101(a)(6))
for FY2004-FY2009.
Provisions in both bills would expand eligibility for projects funded under the
CMAQ program. Each bill specifies funding eligibility in one of two ways. First,
23 U.S.C. 149(b) would be amended to add new classes of projects to the CMAQ
program. Second, clarification would be provided regarding CMAQ funding
eligibility for certain projects for which there has been some confusion among the
regulated community. Following is a summary of proposed projects in both groups:
! Transportation Systems Management and Operations — Both the
House and Senate bills would expand the scope of CMAQ funding
available for transportation systems management and operations.
The House bill includes a list of eligible activities, such as arterial,
freeway, work zone, and emergency management; electronic toll
collection; automated enforcement; traffic operations measures to
improve capacity; and traffic signal coordination. [Senate bill §
1701; House bill § 1202]
! Advanced Truck Stop Electrification Systems — The House bill
specify that CMAQ funds could be used for systems that could help
reduce emissions from heavy-duty transport vehicles that are
frequently left idling overnight or for extended periods. Specifically,
funds could be made available for advanced truck stop electrification
systems that would provide electrical power for heating, air
conditioning, electronic, and communications equipment onboard
the vehicle. No similar provision is included in the Senate bill.
However, confusion regarding current eligibility for funding such
projects is discussed in the Senate Report of the Committee on
Environment and Public Works (109-53). In the report, the
Committee states that such systems qualify for CMAQ funding
under current law, and directs DOT and EPA to issue guidance to all
appropriate federal, state, and local agencies regarding this issue.
[Senate Report 109-53, discussion of § 1612; House bill § 1828]
! Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Walkways — The Senate bill
would allow the use of Surface Transportation Program (STP) and
CMAQ funds for non-construction pedestrian and bicycle safety
projects. The bill would also specifically set aside $446,541 in
annual funding for pedestrian and bicycle safety grants. [§ 1607]
! Purchase of Alternative Fuels — The Senate bill would make
eligible for CMAQ funding projects or programs for the purchase of
alternative fuel or biodiesel. [§ 1612(a)]
! Diesel retrofit — The Senate bill would make eligible for CMAQ
funding diesel retrofit technologies. [§ 1612(a)]
! Emergency Communication Equipment — The Senate bill would
make eligible for CMAQ funding projects or programs involving the
purchase of “integrated, interoperable emergency communications
equipment.” [§ 1612(a)]

CRS-9
The Senate bill also proposes to change the way the CMAQ program would be
implemented through provisions that would:
! Expand the CMAQ apportionment formula to include areas in
nonattainment for the new PM and 8-hour ozone standards. [§
2.5
1611]
! Clarify that CMAQ-type projects are eligible for CMAQ funds in
states with no nonattainment or maintenance areas. [§ 1612(b)]
! Require states to ensure that subrecipients of CMAQ funds have
emission reduction strategies for their fleets used in construction
projects located in nonattainment or maintenance areas when the
projects are funded with highway funds. [§ 1612(c)]
! Direct the Secretary of DOT to encourage states and MPOs to
consult with state and local air quality agencies in nonattainment and
maintenance areas on estimated emission reductions from proposed
CMAQ programs and projects. [§ 1613]
! Direct the Secretary of DOT, in consultation with EPA, to evaluate
and assess a representative sample of CMAQ projects to determine
their impacts on air quality and congestion levels and to ensure the
effective implementation of the program. No direct funding is
provided for the evaluation. [§ 1614]
Unique to the House bill is a provision that would establish a motor vehicle
congestion relief program (§ 1201) to be funded under existing federal highway
programs, including CMAQ.15 The program would fund state projects that focus on
relieving motor vehicle traffic congestion in urbanized areas with populations greater
than 200,000. Congestion relief activities for which funding could be authorized
include:
! The construction of additional lanes, improved interchanges, or
improved access to major terminals, the construction of parallel
roads, or truck-only lanes;
! Improvements to systemwide reliability through activities such as
incident management programs, traffic monitoring and surveillance,
and traveler information initiatives; and
! Activities that could maximize the use of existing lanes through such
means as reversible lanes, coordination of traffic signals, or lane
management strategies.
Use of HOV Lanes for Hybrid Vehicles. Because of their energy and
environmental benefits, some states have extended to drivers of hybrid vehicles an
exception from high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane requirements. Under TEA-21,
states were given the authority to grant HOV exemptions to “Inherently Low
Emission Vehicles” (ILEVs). The ILEV standard requires that a vehicle have no
evaporative emissions, a standard that is not met by any current hybrid. However,
because of the reduced emissions and improved fuel economy of hybrid vehicles,
15 The program could also be funded from set-asides under the Surface Transportation
Program, National Highway System, and Interstate Maintenance programs.

CRS-10
there is congressional interest in explicitly granting states the right to exempt them
from HOV lane requirements.16
Both the House (§ 1208) and Senate (§ 1606) bills would continue and expand
upon HOV lane exceptions established under TEA-21. Both bills include provisions
that would:
! Allow exceptions to HOV requirements for motorcycles, ILEVs,
“low-emission and energy-efficient” vehicles (the definition of
which may include hybrid vehicles), public transportation vehicles,
and other vehicles if the operator pays a toll;
! Require DOT or EPA to establish a process for identifying and
certifying vehicles that meet the HOV exceptions; and
! Provide for the discontinuation of these exceptions if the operation
of HOV lanes becomes seriously degraded as a result of lane
exceptions.
Clean Fuels Formula Grant Program. TEA-21 established a clean fuels
formula grant program to assist transit operators in the purchase of low-emission
buses and related equipment, construction of alternative-fuel fueling facilities,
modification of garage facilities to accommodate clean-fuel vehicles, and utilization
of biodiesel fuel.17 Projects in the grants program were to be funded under the Mass
Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund and with general U.S. Treasury revenues.
Total funding set aside under TEA-21 for this grant program was $1 billion. Funds
were to be apportioned to recipients in urbanized areas designated as nonattainment
or maintenance areas for ozone or carbon monoxide. However, during the
appropriations process, Congress subsequently redirected these funds to a more
general fund for bus purchases not restricted to fuel type. While this grant program
has not been implemented, transit agencies have purchased clean fuel buses at their
discretion.
Section 3009 of TEA-LU would amend the grant program to change the
definition of a “clean fuel bus” and how funds may be apportioned. The program
would provide grants to urban areas on a formula basis to purchase clean fuel buses.
The formula is based on the size of the bus fleet weighed against the severity of
nonattainment within urbanized areas above certain population levels. TEA-LU (§
3034) would authorize $75 million for FY2004 and $100 million for each of FY2005
through FY2009 to carry out this program. The Senate bill does not specifically fund
the grant program. However, there are no provisions in the Senate bill that would
restrict a transit agency from continuing its current practice of using funds from other
transit programs to purchase such buses.
16 For more information, see the discussion on “Hybrid Vehicles” in CRS Issue Brief
IB10128, Alternative Fuels and Advanced Technology Vehicles: Issues in Congress.
17 42 U.S.C. § 5308.

CRS-11
Issues Regarding Environmental Reviews
Before final design, property acquisition, or construction on a highway or transit
project can proceed, the FHWA and FTA must comply with all applicable
environmental review requirements, including those of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).18 NEPA requires all federal agencies to consider the
environmental impacts of proposed federal actions. To ensure that environmental
impacts are considered before final decisions are made, NEPA requires the
preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) for any federally funded
action that significantly affects the quality of the human environment. Projects for
which it is not initially clear whether impacts will be significant require the
preparation of an environmental assessment (EA). If it is determined at any time
during the assessment that a project’s impacts will be significant, an EIS must be
prepared. Projects that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant social,
economic, or environmental effect, and which DOT has determined from past
experience have no significant impact, are processed as categorical exclusions.
In addition to meeting NEPA requirements, any given transportation project may
require compliance with a wide variety of legal requirements, enforceable by multiple
agencies. For example, impacts of a highway project may trigger compliance with
elements of the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.
1536), the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470), or the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1251). FHWA regulations require that compliance with all applicable
environmental laws, executive orders, and other legal requirements be documented
within the appropriate NEPA documentation (a concept referred to as the “NEPA
umbrella”).19
Legislative Proposals Regarding Environmental Reviews
Some Members of Congress have expressed concerns that the environmental
review process, particularly for large, complex surface transportation projects, can
be inefficient, leading to delays in completion of those projects. To address this
concern, TEA-21 included “Environmental Streamlining” provisions. Some
Members of Congress have expressed the need for further legislation to expedite the
environmental review process required of highway and transit projects. In response
to that need, both the Senate and House bills would repeal TEA-21’s streamlining
provisions and institute new procedures intended to expedite the environmental
review process.
18 An “environmental review” refers to a requirement to show evidence of formal
consideration, evaluation, or analysis of the impacts of a proposed federal action. Most
often, the use of the term is in reference to the process of complying with NEPA
requirements. However, depending upon the project at issue, an environmental review may
refer to the process of complying with provisions of any applicable environmental
requirement.
19 For more detailed information about the NEPA process, see CRS Report RL32024,
Background on NEPA Implementation for Highway Projects: Streamlining the Process and
CRS Report RL32032, Streamlining Environmental Reviews of Highway and Transit
Projects: Analysis of TEA-LU (H.R. 3) and SAFETEA (S. 732).

CRS-12
Streamlining Environmental Reviews. Section 1511 of the Senate bill
would establish a new “transportation project development process” that could be
implemented at the request of the project sponsor.20 The new process and related
provisions in the Senate bill, applicable to highway and transit projects, include the
following:
! A codification of DOT’s traditional role as the lead federal agency
responsible for completion of the environmental review process.
! A statutory delineation of the roles and responsibilities of the lead
agency and cooperating agencies.
! A requirement to establish a “coordination plan” to coordinate
agency and public participation and to develop a schedule for
completion of the environmental review process.
! Provisions for the collaborative development of the project’s
statement of purpose and need and project alternatives as required
under NEPA or any other applicable statute.
! A requirement to follow specified dispute resolution procedures in
the event a cooperating agency identifies “major issues of concern”
regarding the potential environmental or socioeconomic impacts of
a project.
Section 1512 of the Senate bill would authorize states to assume responsibility
for determining whether certain designated activities may be included within the
class of actions currently identified in FHWA regulations as categorical exclusions.
The criteria for making such a determination would be established by the Secretary
of DOT and apply only to projects designated by the Secretary. Such authority would
be determined through a mutual agreement between the state and the Secretary and
delineated in a memorandum of understanding.
Section 1513 of the Senate bill proposes to establish a “surface transportation
project delivery pilot program” that would delegate certain additional federal
environmental review responsibilities to no more than five states, including
Oklahoma. Responsibility could be assumed for environmental reviews required
under NEPA, or any federal law, for one or more highway projects within the state.
The program would be administered in accordance with a written agreement between
the participating state and the Secretary. The Secretary is directed to promulgate
regulations to implement the pilot program within 270 days of enacting the law.
Unless otherwise specified, Section 1515 of the Senate bill directs the Secretary
to promulgate regulations to implement each of the provisions discussed above
within one year of enacting the law.
The House bill includes its provisions related to the environmental review
process under Section 6002, “Efficient Environmental Reviews for Project
Decisionmaking.” Like the Senate bill, TEA-LU specifies certain provisions intended
to reduce delays arising from the environmental review process. The House bill’s
20 Otherwise, current regulatory requirements that specify “Environmental Impact and
Related Procedures” under 23 C.F.R. 771 will apply.

CRS-13
“project development procedures” would be applicable to all highway projects,
public transportation capital projects, and multimodal projects that require an EIS and
to other projects if appropriate. Further, proposed provisions regarding the project
development procedures would:
! Statutorily designate DOT as the lead federal agency and the project
sponsor (if a state or local government) as the joint lead agency for
the environmental review process.
! Allow the joint lead agency to prepare any supporting documents if
the federal lead agency provides guidance and assistance and
approved the documents.
! Require the environmental review process to be initiated by the
project sponsor.
! Require the project’s statement of purpose and need to be defined
and the project alternatives to be determined by the lead agency after
participating agencies and the public have an opportunity for
involvement.
! Establish an extendable 60-day deadline on comments to a draft EIS
and an extendable 30-day deadline on all other comment periods in
the environmental review process.
! Establish a dispute resolution process intended to identify and
resolve issues of concern that could delay completion of the
environmental review process.
! Require a state participating in the environmental review process to
require the participation of all appropriate state agencies.
! Allow project funds to be provided to state and federal agencies to
support activities related to the environmental review process that
would expedite project delivery.
! Establish a 90-day statute of limitation on claims concerning final
agency actions.
TEA-LU does not specifically direct the Secretary to promulgate regulations to
implement the environmental review provisions of the bill.
Revisions to “Section 4(f)” Requirements. Both the House (§ 6003) and
Senate (§ 1514) bills would amend current statutory provisions related to “Section
4(f)” provisions of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.21 Section 4(f)
requirements apply to publicly owned parks and recreation areas, and wildlife and
waterfowl refuges. They also apply to public or privately owned historic sites of
national, state, or local significance. Under current law, any use of such a resource
for a transportation project is prohibited unless there is no prudent and feasible
21 Section 4(f) of the DOT Act was originally set forth at 49 U.S.C. § 1653(f) and applies
to all DOT projects. A similar provision, found at 23 U.S.C. § 138, applies specifically to
federal-aid highways. In 1983, as part of a general recodification of the DOT Act, 49 U.S.C.
§ 1653(f) was formally repealed and codified in 49 U.S.C. § 303 with slightly different
language. This provision no longer falls under a “Section 4(f),” but DOT has continued this
reference, given that over the years, the whole body of provisions, policies, and case law has
been collectively referenced as Section 4(f).

CRS-14
alternative to do otherwise, and the project includes all possible planning to minimize
harm to the resource.
The Senate bill would amend the current law to allow for the use of a Section
4(f) resource if it is determined that such use would result in “de minimis impacts”
to that resource. The House bill includes a similar provision; however, it would
apply only to the use of historic sites. TEA-LU would allow the use of a historic site
if the use is determined, in accordance with provisions of the National Historic
Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f), to have no “adverse effect” on the site. Also,
provisions in both the House (§ 6004) and Senate (§ 1604) bills would specifically
exempted the Interstate System, segments of which are approaching 50 years old,
from consideration as a historic site pursuant to Section 4(f).
Additional Environmental Issues
Provisions involving the implementation of the Clean Air Act and NEPA have
garnered the most attention and debate during the transportation reauthorization
process. However, some Members of Congress have also expressed concern
regarding a variety of other environment-related issues. In particular, both the House
and Senate bills include proposals that would authorize funding for projects or
activities that minimize or mitigate potential environmental impacts of
transportation-related activities. Each bill would also authorize funding for research
that may ultimately prove beneficial to the environment.
Expansion of Environmental Projects Eligible for Funding
A variety of highway programs, including the Surface Transportation Program
(STP) and the National Highway System (NHS) program, are funded through the
highway trust fund. The STP provides funding that may be used by states and
localities for projects on any federal-aid highway. The NHS program provides
funding to states for improvements to rural and urban roads that are part of the
national highway system, including the Interstate System and designated connections
to major intermodal terminals.
Both the House and Senate bills propose to set aside STP and/or NHS funds for
specific projects. However, the Senate bill would authorize the use of STP and/or
NHS funds for a variety of programs or projects intended to minimize or mitigate
environmental impacts related to surface transportation projects. Following is a list
of projects or programs for which STP and/or NHS program funds would be required
to be spent or for which such funds may have been eligible under the Senate bill:
! Habitat, Streams, and Wetlands Project Mitigation Fund — Allow
a state to deposit into a habitat, streams, and wetlands mitigation
fund part of the funds apportioned to it under the STP and NHS
programs. [§ 1505]
! Environmental Restoration and Pollution Abatement — Expand
eligibility under both the STP and NHS programs to fund pollution
abatement and environmental restoration projects. To minimize or

CRS-15
mitigate the impacts of any transportation project, the Senate bill
would allow environmental restoration and pollution abatement to
be carried out to address water pollution or environmental
degradation caused wholly or partially by a transportation facility.
This could include retrofitting and construction of storm water
treatment systems to meet federal and state requirements under the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1341, 1342).
[§ 1601]
! Control of Invasive Species — Expand eligibility under both the
STP and NHS programs for the control of invasive species and the
establishment of native plant species. Activities funded under the
program could include participation in statewide inventories of
invasive plant species and desirable plant species; regional native
plant habitat conservation and mitigation; native re-vegetation; and
elimination of invasive species to create fuel breaks for the
prevention and control of wildfires. [§ 1601]
! Highway Stormwater Discharge Mitigation Program — Stormwater
mitigation is currently eligible for STP funding as a Transportation
Enhancement project. The Senate bill would require 2 percent of a
state’s STP apportionment to be available for mitigation projects to
improve the quality of stormwater discharge from federal-aid
highways. Funding could be provided for projects that reduce
flooding; recharge groundwater; promote natural filters; minimize
stream bank erosion; and improve water quality. The Secretary of
DOT would be required to issue guidance to assist states in carrying
out the program. [§1620]
Funding for Surface Transportation Research Projects
Both the House and Senate bills propose to authorize funding for transportation
research projects, related to the environment, out of the highway trust fund.
Advanced Vehicle Technologies Research. Authorized under TEA-21,
the Advanced Vehicle Technologies Program (AVP)22 was established to support the
production of cleaner, more energy efficient vehicles (e.g., electric or hybrid-electric
vehicles). The program is managed by DOT in partnership with other federal
agencies (e.g., Department of Defense, Department of Energy), private companies,
research institutions, and state and local governments. Of $250 million authorized
for this program under TEA-21, Congress appropriated a total of $10 million.
The Senate bill does not specifically authorize funding for the AVP program.
The House bill replaces the existing program with an “Advanced Heavy-Duty
Vehicle Technologies Research Program” (§ 5401). Under this section, the Secretary
of DOT is directed to conduct research, development, demonstration, and testing to
integrate emerging advanced heavy-duty vehicle technologies in order to “provide
seamless, safe, secure, and efficient transportation and to benefit the environment.”
The House bill would authorize the appropriation of $1 million for FY2004 and $3
22 49 U.S.C. § 5506.

CRS-16
million for each of FY 2005 through FY20009 from the Highway Trust Fund for the
program. For any given project, at least 50 percent of the funding would be required
to be provided by non-federal sources.
Surface Transportation Environment and Planning Cooperative
Research Program. Established under TEA-21, the Secretary of DOT was
required to establish a surface transportation-environment cooperative research
program. Included among the program’s research priorities is a requirement to
improve understanding of the factors that contribute to the demand for transportation;
develop indicators of economic, social, and environmental performance of
transportation systems to facilitate analysis of potential alternatives; and study the
relationship between highway density and ecosystem integrity. One component of
the program was the establishment of an Advisory Board to make recommendations
on environmental and energy conservation research, technology, and technology
transfer activities related to surface transportation. Under the program, the Secretary
was authorized to make grants to, and enter into cooperative agreements with, the
National Academy of Sciences to conduct activities relating to transportation-
environmental research. Over TEA-21's authorization period (FY1998-FY2003),
Congress did not appropriate funds for this program.
Both the House (§ 5203) and Senate (§ 2101) bills include provisions that would
reauthorize funding for this program. The House bill would set aside $5 million for
FY2004 and $15 million per year for FY2005-FY2009 from the Surface
Transportation Research funds. The House bill would also allow additional funding
to be sought from public and private sources. The Senate bill (§ 2001(a)(1)(B))
would set aside a total of $18.7 million per year for FY2005 through FY2009 from
Surface Transportation Research funds. The Senate bill would allow research to
address planning and evaluation models, factors contributing to transportation
demand, and transportation performance indicators to meet environmental
requirements and facilitate analysis of potential alternatives.