[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 63 (Monday, April 1, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14363-14372]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7821]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA Docket No. 94-29]


Exemption Criteria Policy for Highway Sanctions

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final policy statement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is to establish a policy concerning 
exemption criteria used to determine which projects could advance if 
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) imposes highway sanctions in 
accordance with section 179(a) or section 110(m) of the Clean Air Act

[[Page 14364]]
(CAA) and applicable EPA regulations. These exemption criteria define 
the requirements which establish the basis for project exemptions, and 
describe and clarify the types of projects and programs that are exempt 
during highway sanctions.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 11, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this final notice are contained in 
Docket No. 94-29, FHWA, Room 4232, HCC-10, Office of Chief Counsel, 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. The docket may be viewed 
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Kirk D. Fauver, Office of Environment and Planning, (202) 366-2079, 
or Mr. Reid Alsop, Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 366-1371, FHWA. 
Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., et., Monday through 
Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final notice on the exemption criteria 
for highway sanctions provides clarifications regarding the types of 
projects (``exempt projects``) listed in section 179(b)(1) of the Clean 
Air Act (CAA) as amended in 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7509(b)(1)), that may 
continue to advance while an area is subject to highway funding 
sanctions. Under section 179(b) and section 110(m) of the CAA, the EPA 
Administrator may impose a prohibition on project approvals and grants 
made under title 23, United States Code, by the Secretary of 
Transportation (``highway sanctions''). The descriptions of exempt 
projects contained within this document would apply to sanctions 
applied under section 179(a) (``mandatory sanctions'') or section 
110(m) (``discretionary sanctions''). Section 110(m) contemplates 
circumstances under which EPA may extend highway sanctions to areas not 
designated as ``nonattainment''. Hence, the information contained in 
this final notice applies to attainment, nonattainment, and 
unclassifiable areas. As of this date EPA has published two final rules 
related to sanctions. The first was published on January 11, 1994, 
entitled ``Criteria for Exercising Discretionary Sanctions Under Title 
I of the Clean Air Act`` (59 FR 1476; 40 CFR Part 52). It establishes 
the criteria to guide EPA's decision on whether, in a specific 
circumstance, to impose discretionary sanctions on a statewide basis 
under section 110(m).
    A second regulation, ``Selection of Sequence of Mandatory Sanctions 
for Findings Made Pursuant to Section 179 of the Clean Air Act,'' was 
published on August 4, 1994 (59 FR 39832; 40 CFR Part 52). This 
regulation establishes that, following section 179(a) findings, the 2-
to-1 offset sanction on new or modified major stationary sources 
applies first, 18 months after the finding (except where EPA reverses 
the order through a separate rulemaking), unless EPA has determined 
that the State corrected the deficiency that prompted the finding. 
Highway sanctions apply second, six months after application of the 
offset sanction, unless EPA has determined that the State corrected the 
deficiency that prompted the finding.
    Thos two final rules (with this final notice on exemption criteria) 
effectively supersede the joint DOT/EPA notice of April 10, 1980 (45 FR 
24692), ``Federal Assistance Limitation Required by section 176(a) of 
the Clean Air Act.'' The EPA also expect to publish another regulation 
sometime in the future that would establish the sequence of sanctions 
applied under section 502(d)(2)(B) of the Clean Air Act relating to the 
EPA's permit program.

Preamble to the Final Criteria Policy Notice

    The outline for the contents of the preamble to the final criteria 
policy notice is as follows:

I. Requirements which Establish the Basis for Highway Sanction 
Exemptions
II. General
III. Discussion of Comments Received by FHWA on Proposed Exemption 
Criteria
    A. Stand-alone Environmental Projects
    B. High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Exemptions
    C. Maintenance Projects
    D. Project Development Actions under the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA)
    E. Exemptions for Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality 
Improvement (CMAQ) Projects and Programs
    F. Safety
    G. Transportation Planning and Research Activities
    H. Use of Supporting Data From Transportation Management Systems
    I. Improved Streamlining
    J. FHWA's Response to Other Comments Received
IV. Safety Program/Project Requirements Under 23 U.S.C.

I. Requirements Which Establish the Basis for Highway Sanction 
Exemptions

    Under Section 179(b)(1) of the CAA, the Secretary of Transportation 
(as delegated to the FHWA) may make certain project approvals and award 
grants, even while the nonattainment area or State is under highway 
sanctions. As stated in section 179(b)(1) of the CAA, safety projects 
could go forward provided the Secretary of Transportation determines 
that, based on accident or other data, the principal purpose of the 
project is an improvement in safety to resolve a demonstrated problem 
and will likely result in a significant reduction or avoidance of 
accidents.
    In addition to safety projects, section 179(b)(1) specifically 
exempts seven activities from highway sanctions (See ``Congressionally 
Authorized Activities'' of this final notice). Projects that the EPA 
Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, 
determines would contribute to air quality improvement and would not 
encourage single occupancy vehicle (SOV) capacity also are exempted. 
Programs and projects which are allowed to go forward under section 
179(b)(1) should strive to alleviate emissions and congestion problems.

II. General

    This preamble discusses the comments received during the 60-day 
public comment period, provides FHWA's responses to these comments, and 
indicates how resulting changes were incorporated in the final 
exemption criteria (originally proposed via 60 FR 34315). The exemption 
criteria notice clarifies and establishes types of highway projects 
which are exempt (or ``categorically exempt'') from highway sanctions. 
Categorical exemptions are title 23-funded or approved transportation 
projects that do not need additional information or documentation to 
justify them as being ``exempt'' during section 179(a) or 110(m) CAA 
highway sanctions. Also, other ``exempt'' title 23-funded or approved 
transportation projects are identified in this final notice. These 
``exempt'' transportation projects, although not deemed ``categorically 
exempt'', could be allowed to move forward (with additional 
justification and data provided by the state) in the event of highway 
sanctions. Categorically exempt projects were designated under this 
final notice because EPA and DOT have determined that such projects 
either will improve air quality and not encourage single occupancy 
vehicle (SOV) capacity or are statutorily exempt under section 179(b) 
of the CAA.
    The final exemption criteria also recognize the respective roles 
and responsibilities of the FHWA (in consultation with the EPA) in 
applying funding and program/approval limitations under section 
179(b)(1), when a highway sanction is imposed by EPA under section 
179(a) or section 110(m) of the CAA.

[[Page 14365]]

    The final exemption criteria are applicable nationwide. Although 
the FHWA will consult with EPA to determine whether projects meet the 
exemption criteria, the final authority to determine whether a project 
is exempt from highway sanctions, under the safety exemption and other 
specific statutory exemptions, is the sole responsibility of the 
Secretary of Transportation (as delegated to the FHWA). Other 
transportation-related projects, not covered under the aforementioned 
specific exemptions, may be exempted if the EPA Administrator, in 
consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, finds that they will 
improve air quality and not encourage SOV capacity under section 
179(b)(1)(B)(viii) of the CAA.

III. Discussion of Comments Received by FHWA on Proposed Exemption 
Criteria

    The following section discusses the significant comments received 
by the FHWA in response to the proposed policy on the exemption 
criteria published on June 30, 1995 (60 FR 34315) and FHWA's response 
to the comments. Twenty one (21) comments on the proposed exemption 
criteria were received by FHWA. The comments received by FHWA were sent 
by metropolitan planning officials, state departments of 
transportation, environmental advocates, highway safety advocates, 
county commissioners, and one from a governor's office. Issues ranged 
from providing categorical exemptions for ``stand-alone'' environmental 
actions, to providing additional exemptions for actions not originally 
considered as part of the proposed exemption criteria.

A. Stand-Alone Environmental Projects

    The proposed policy statement on exemption criteria requested 
comment on eight ``stand-alone'' projects which are likely to have ``de 
minimis'' environmental or environmentally beneficial impacts. These 
eight ``stand-alone'' projects are not specifically exempt from 
sanctions by the CAA. These projects may improve water quality, 
mitigate wetland impacts, provide landscaping, preserve historic 
structures, reduce noise, and have other aesthetic benefits. While the 
proposed policy statement did not exempt these projects, FHWA requested 
comment as to whether the following types of projects should be exempt 
from highway sanctions because of their ``de minimis'' impact on air 
quality. These actions are typically exempted from the CAA 
transportation conformity requirements (see 40 CFR sections 51.460 and 
93.134). Commenters were requested to include a discussion of the basis 
for their position in favor of, or against, such an exemption. The 
projects for which exemption status was being considered included:

1. Wetland mitigation;
2. Planting trees, shrubs, wildflowers;
3. Landscaping;
4. Purchase of scenic easements;
5. Billboard and other sign removal;
6. Historic preservation;
7. Transportation enhancements;
8. Noise abatement.
Comments Received by FHWA
    Many of the commenters (in response to the proposed exemption 
criteria) noted that the stand-alone projects listed above have little 
or no impact on increasing vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT), nor can they 
be associated with encouraging SOV capacity. Of the twenty one (21) 
comments received, thirteen (13) expressed support for including these 
types of ``stand-alone'' projects as categorically exempt from highway 
funding sanctions. There were no comments received by FHWA that were 
opposed to exempting these projects.
    Some of the commenters noted that these ``stand-alone'' projects 
actually improve or enhance the environment and have minimal or 
sometimes even positive impacts on the ambient air quality. In 
addition, one commenter stated that these types of projects constituted 
only 0.7 percent of their total state highway program. With the 
percentage of these types of actions so small, the commenter also added 
that the exclusion of these projects would not contribute significantly 
to the purpose of highway sanctions under Section 179(a) or 110(m) of 
the CAA. Additionally, the other potential environmental benefits of 
these ``stand-alone'' projects would not be realized if they were 
halted during a possible highway funding sanction scenario.
FHWA's Response to Comments
    The FHWA has considered the comments received. The final exemption 
criteria generally exempt these ``stand alone'' projects from highway 
sanctions for several reasons. The significance of these projects, both 
in terms of impacts on air quality and in terms of highway program 
expenditures is ``de minimis'', as noted in the comments above, hence 
they would not add significantly to any punitive aspect of highway 
sanctions. In addition, such projects advance identifiable 
environmental or aesthetic goals and do not encourage increases in SOV 
capacity. Finally, these types of projects were generally exempted from 
the conformity requirements of section 176(c) of the CAA by the 
regulations implementing section 176(c) (see EPA's Final Rule on 
Transportation Conformity, 40 CFR sections 51.460 and 93.134) because 
these projects have no emissions impact, and were considered to be 
neutral or ``de minimis''.
    However, consistent with the exemptions contained in the conformity 
regulations, the transportation enhancement activities (TEA) associated 
with the rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation 
buildings, structures, or facilities are not categorically exempted 
since such activities may, in some cases, have adverse impacts on air 
quality and may increase VMT.
    A majority of the commenters suggested that flexibility be provided 
to allow other typically ``non-exempt'' projects, listed in section B 
(60 FR 34318) of the proposed exemption policy criteria, to be 
categorically exempt. However, as these projects could lead to expanded 
single occupant vehicle capacity, the FHWA believes that they can not 
be considered categorically ``exempt'' under the exemption criteria.

B. High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Exemptions

    The proposed exemption criteria provided categorical exemptions for 
the construction of new HOV lanes (only if those lanes were solely 
dedicated as 24-hour HOV facilities), and the conversion of existing 
lanes for HOV use during peak hours.
Comments Received by FHWA
    Comments were received by the FHWA on the issue of providing 
exemptions for all HOV lanes, regardless of time-of-day restrictions 
(whether 24-hour or peak hour HOVs). One of the commenters noted that 
the exemption for HOV facilities presented in the proposed exemption 
criteria (60 FR 34319) only applied to the construction of 24-hour HOV 
lanes, and suggested that this restriction is ``inappropriately 
narrow''. Additionally, the commenter stated that the application of 
sanctions to HOV lanes (which are open to non-HOV travel during off-
peak periods) would only serve to limit the States' ability to develop 
HOV facilities in a manner receiving broad public acceptance.
FHWA's Response to Comments
    Upon further review of section 179(b)(1)(B) of the CAA, the FHWA, 
in consultation with EPA, has decided to allow categorical exemptions 
for those

[[Page 14366]]
HOV projects described in the proposed criteria (i.e. construction of 
24-hour HOV facilities, and the conversion of existing lanes during 24-
hour periods). The construction of new 24-hour HOV facilities or the 
conversion of existing lanes to 24-hour HOV facilities are specifically 
exempted under this notice, since these actions meet the definition of 
``solely for the use of passenger buses or high occupancy vehicles'' 
per section 179(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the CAA.
    Additionally, FHWA and EPA agree that the conversion of existing 
lanes during peak hours should also be categorically exempt under 
section 179(b)(1)(B)(viii) of the CAA, because these actions would 
improve air quality without encouraging SOV capacity. The categorical 
exemption, regarding the conversion of existing lanes for HOV use 
during peak hours, was originally made under section 179(b)(1)(B)(ii) 
and described under ``Congressionally Authorized Activities'' of the 
proposed exemption criteria notice. The categorical exemption for these 
projects in now made under section 179(b)(1)(B)(viii) of the CAA under 
``Air Quality Improvement Programs That Do Not Encourage Single 
Occupancy Vehicle Capacity'' of the final exemption criteria, since 
these projects more appropriately meet this exemption criterion.
    Other HOV projects, that are not categorically exempt under section 
179(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the CAA, may be exempted on a case-by-case basis 
pursuant to the section entitled ``Air Quality Improvement Programs 
That Do Not Encourage Single Occupancy Vehicle Capacity'' of the final 
exemption criteria, per section 179(b)(1)(B)(viii) of the CAA. These 
categorical exemptions are granted only if the EPA Administrator (in 
consultation with the Secretary of Transportation) finds that they 
would improve air quality and would not encourage single occupancy 
vehicle capacity. In addition, the final exemption criteria also 
categorically exempt all transportation control measures (TCMs) in an 
EPA-approved SIP or Federal Implementation Plan which have emission 
reduction credit and will not encourage SOV capacity (per section 
179(b)(1)(B)(viii) of the CAA).

C. Maintenance Projects

    The proposed exemption criteria did not provide categorical 
exemptions for maintenance and rehabilitation projects, unless the 
projects could be shown to have a principal purpose of improving safety 
(such as projects from the Highway Safety Improvement Program or the 
Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program).
Comments Received by FHWA
    The FHWA received several comments which proposed that all highway 
maintenance projects (such as resurfacing, restoration, and 
rehabilitation) regardless of safety and SOV capacity expansion 
concerns, be considered ``exempt'' from highway sanctions. These 
comments requested more flexibility and stated that these actions 
should be considered exempt, unless ``FHWA can show that air quality 
well be adversely affected'' by their implementation. Commenters also 
suggested that repaving and resurfacing projects that may be shown to 
improve traffic flow and safety be considered ``categorically exempt'' 
during the highway sanctions, as older deteriorated pavement may add to 
additional congestion and ultimately lead to air quality problems.
FHWA's Response to Comments
    FHWA examined this issue and found that Congress reviewed the 
possibility of exempting resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation 
(``3-R'') type highway projects during the debates leading toward the 
development of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. While there was an 
attempt to include a categorical exemption for such projects this 
approach was rejected in part because of concerns that a categorical 
exemption for all ``3-R'' type projects could become a ``huge 
loophole'' for projects exempted from sanctions under the safety 
category (Congressional Record; E3700; November 2, 1990). Consequently, 
``3-R'' type projects must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to 
ensure that each project's principal purpose is safety.

D. Project Development Actions Under the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA)

    The proposed exemption criteria described the extent to which 
project development actions under NEPA would be considered ``exempt'' 
from highway sanctions. The proposed criteria stated that project 
development activities under NEPA may be exempt from highway sanctions 
only if consideration of ``exempt'' alternatives, such as transit or 
other transportation demand management (TDM) measures, are actively 
being considered as reasonable independent alternatives.
Comments Received by FHWA
    One commenter stated his support for providing exemptions for NEPA 
studies (if ``exempt'' project alternatives remain under 
consideration), because the studies would be considering alternatives 
that could help the state ultimately attain the national ambient air 
quality standards (NAAQS). One commenter recommended that added 
flexibility be provided during the project development process for 
those project development actions involving ``neutral'' project 
alternatives (which may not be ``highway-related'') that are not 
considered to be ``exempt'' under highway sanctions.
FHWA's Response to Comments
    The final exemption criteria provide flexibility by allowing a 
broad range of TDM measures, TCMs in applicable SIPs (which have 
emissions reduction credit and will not encourage SOV capacity), mass 
transit, and other ``exempt'' project actions to be advanced as part of 
project development studies and activities if they meet the criteria of 
this final notice. The final criteria provide for the continued funding 
of project development activities during a highway sanctions scenario, 
as long as project alternatives that would be ``exempt'' under the 
policy statement are still being considered by the project sponsor. 
Once all of the project alternatives that could be considered 
``exempt'' from highway sanctions are eliminated, then project 
development activities for NEPA or other purposes (such as MIS 
development studies) are no longer exempt, and additional project 
development activities or studies can not be approved or funded under 
title 23 while highway sanctions are in effect.

E. Exemptions for Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement 
(CMAQ) Projects and Programs

    Categorical exemptions were not provided for all CMAQ projects in 
the proposed exemption criteria. Both the proposed and final exemption 
criteria provide categorical exemptions for all TCMs in approved SIPs 
or Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) which have emission reduction 
credit and will not encourage SOV capacity, and for those CMAQ-funded 
projects related to inspection and maintenance facilities and 
activities, as well as bicycle/pedestrian and carpool/vanpool programs. 
The proposed and final exemption criteria also provide an opportunity 
for project exemptions upon review of air quality benefits on a case-
by-case basis, providing the project meets the criteria under ``Air 
Quality Improvement Programs That Do Not Encourage Single Occupancy 
Vehicle Capacity'' of this final notice.

[[Page 14367]]

Comments Received by FHWA
    There were four comments that supported the full blanket exemption 
of all CMAQ programs and projects from highway sanctions, since their 
primary goal (by definition) is to contribute to the attainment of the 
NAAQS. One commenter stated that the process is redundant and 
unnecessary, since CMAQ projects can not be authorized unless they 
conform to the requirements of federal law and regulation. Because FHWA 
requires a project justification and analysis before authorization of 
each CMAQ project, the commenter recommended that FHWA grant 
categorical exemptions for these CMAQ projects in order to avoid 
duplication of effort and to conserve resources.
FHWA's Response to Comments
    The final notice on exemptions does not provide for full blanket 
CMAQ exemptions. Under the CAA, exempt projects may not encourage SOV 
capacity, and in some cases there could be potential SOV capacity 
expansion provided by certain CMAQ-funded projects. As noted, the 
following four types of projects (which may receive CMAQ funding) are 
considered to be ``categorically exempt'' and will not require 
additional review by the EPA or FHWA in the event of highway sanctions:

1. TCMs contained in an EPA-approved SIP (or Federal Implementation 
Plan which have emission reduction credit and will not encourage SOV 
capacity);
2. Inspection and maintenance facilities and activities eligible under 
CMAQ;
3. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities; and
4. Carpool/Vanpool programs.

    Other CMAQ projects may be exempted on a case-by-case basis, 
pursuant to the final exemption criteria, if the project can be shown 
to improve air quality and not encourage SOV capacity.

F. Safety

    The proposed exemption criteria provided for categorical exemptions 
for several programs which have been established under title 23, 
U.S.C., expressly for the purpose of addressing safety objectives, 
either through programs targeted at driver behavior or safety projects 
intended to remediate structures or facilities, or to prevent loss of 
human life.
    Some of these safety programs will need to provide justification to 
show that the project is related to safety (unless the project is drawn 
out of a statewide safety program or is related to the programs 
administrated by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA)). These ``additional justification'' projects include capital 
projects involving elimination of safety hazards, emergency relief (ER) 
projects that involve added capacity, improving safety deficiencies, 
and other programs such as pavement resurfacing for skid resistance.
Comments Received by FHWA
    One of the commenters expressed support for flexibility in 
determining whether the ``principal purpose'' of a project activity is 
improving safety. The commenter stated that a ``strict application of a 
test which requires showing that safety be the `principal purpose' 
could preclude projects which have a significant impact on other 
factors.'' A highway safety advocate expressed strong concern about the 
designation of ``improvements to, or reconfiguration of, existing 
interchanges'' as ``non-exempt'' under the section entitled ``Typically 
Nonexempt Projects''. The commenter suggested that this designation may 
lead to safety concerns related to the perpetuation of older 
substandard geometric designs during highway sanctions.
    Another commenter stated that the safety program provisions 
(dealing with exempt actions) were too focused on the NHTSA programs, 
and not title 23 federal-aid safety programs administered by the FHWA 
(without NHTSA participation). The commenter suggested that ``FHWA-
only'' programs should be included in the exempt criteria.
FHWA Response to Comments
    Consistent with section 179(b)(1) of the CAA, the final exemption 
criteria allow certain exemptions for ``specific'' safety projects and 
programs, that are not from a statewide safety program, once 
justification is provided to demonstrate that they improve safety. This 
data may be derived from accident data drawn out of a safety or bridge 
management system (under this final notice). Flexibility was provided 
in both the proposed and final criteria to allow exemptions of 
``specific'' safety projects and programs that can be shown to be 
exempt (on the grounds of safety) based upon national experience. 
Allowable exemptions for ``specific'' safety projects under the 
exemption criteria may involve upgrading obsolete geometric designs 
(for improving limited sight distance), replacement of substandard 
guardrail, rehabilitation for skid resistance, or address other safety 
needs and purposes, as outlined in the exemption criteria.
    Categorical exemptions of ER projects (which do not involve 
substantial functional, locational, or capacity changes) are considered 
important and have been included in the final criteria. Following a 
catastrophic event such as an earthquake or flood, it would not be in 
the public interest to require project sponsors to provide additional 
safety information or data. Therefore, FHWA has agreed to categorically 
exempt all ER projects which do not involve substantial functional, 
locational, or capacity changes funded under title 23 in order to 
provide flexible administrative relief in the event of a natural 
disaster, civil unrest, or terrorist act. Such projects for the repair 
of damage that follows such catastrophic events are considered to be 
``exempt'' safety projects. It is noted that, for conformity purposes, 
ER projects are ``exempt'' under the EPA conformity rule if the project 
does not involve substantial functional, locational, or capacity 
changes.
    Title 23 ER projects discussed in the final notice are authorized 
expenditures by the Secretary of the DOT, as defined under section 125 
of title 23, United States Code (23 U.S.C.). The eligible activities 
under the ER program include the repair or reconstruction of highways, 
roads, and trails which the Secretary has found to be seriously damaged 
as the result of a natural disaster (e.g., floods, hurricanes, tidal 
waves, earthquakes, severe storms, or landslides, etc.). ER funds 
cannot be used for purposes of repairing or reconstructing bridges that 
have been closed to all vehicular traffic by the State or responsible 
local official due to structural deficiencies, lack of maintenance, or 
physical deterioration. Provisions for the ER program can be found 
under 23 CFR part 668.
    The proposed exemption criteria did not intend to place stronger 
emphasis on the exempted NHTSA programs than on the applicable exempt 
title 23 safety programs and projects funded under the ISTEA (or other 
title 23 programs). Although specific identification of a highway 
safety project from an obvious safety-related program such as the 
Highway Safety Improvement Program or the Hazard Elimination Program 
(23 U.S.C. 152) was mentioned in the proposed exemption criteria, it 
was not meant to eliminate other ``exempt'' title 23 safety programs or 
projects that may be funded under the Surface Transportation Program 
(STP) or the National Highway System (NHS) or any other ISTEA (or title 
23) funded program. Title 23 safety projects, however, must meet the 
criteria for ``exempt'' status (whether individually

[[Page 14368]]
or as part of a statewide program) as defined in the final notice on 
exemption criteria.

G. Transportation Planning and Research Activities

Comment Received by FHWA
    One commenter stated that it was not clear as to whether all 
transportation research is exempt (because it may in some way benefit 
air quality or safety) or whether only those research projects that 
directly benefit air quality or safety are exempt.
FHWA's Response to Comment
    As indicated in the proposed notice and carried forth under the 
final exemption criteria, all transportation planning and research 
activities are exempt from highway sanctions.

H. Use of Supporting Data From Transportation Management Systems

    Section 1034 of the ISTEA amended title 23, United States Code, by 
adding section 303, Management Systems. Section 303 requires State 
development, establishment, and implementation of a system for managing 
each of the following: highway pavement of Federal-aid highways (PMS); 
bridges on and off Federal-aid highways (BMS); highway safety 
management system (SMS); traffic congestion (CMS); public 
transportation facilities and equipment (PTMS); and intermodal 
transportation facilities and systems (IMS). An interim final rule for 
these systems was published on December 1, 1993, as 23 CFR part 500.
    On July 20, 1995, the FHWA and FTA issued a joint memorandum 
regarding updated compliance dates for the six management systems. The 
NHS Designation Act was signed by the President on November 28, 1995 
which amended 23 U.S.C. 303(c) to allow States, at any time, to elect 
to not implement, in whole or part, any one or more of the ISTEA 
management systems under section 303. However, in accordance with 
section 134(i)(3) of title 23 United States Code (as amended by the 
ISTEA of 1991), transportation management areas (TMAs) must include a 
congestion management system (CMS) as part of their transportation 
planning process.
    The proposed exemption criteria suggested that data generated from 
bridge management systems or safety management systems could be used to 
justify exemptions for safety projects and programs in the event of 
highway sanctions. The preamble of the proposed exemption criteria also 
discussed the implementation dates required by the interim final rule 
on the ISTEA management systems issued on December 1, 1993 (as 23 CFR 
part 500). The National Highway System (NHS) Designation Act of 1995 
has made the development and implementation of one or more of the ISTEA 
management systems optional for the States. However, in accordance with 
section 134(i)(3) of title 23 United States Code (as amended by the 
ISTEA of 1991), transportation management areas (TMAs) must include a 
congestion management system as part of their transportation planning 
process.
Comments Received by FHWA
    In reference to the implementation dates for the six management 
systems required under the ISTEA legislation (via 23 CFR part 500), 
three commenters correctly noted that the FHWA and FTA have 
subsequently published revised deadlines as part of the government-wide 
regulatory streamlining effort. One commenter suggested that if the 
output of management systems is going to be used as a basis for 
determining sanction exemptions, then highway sanctions should only 
apply to the NHS routes.
FHWA's Response to Comments
    The commenters's assumption regarding the application of sanctions 
to NHS System projects is incorrect as each air basin or region or 
subregion that is under highway sanctions issued by the EPA under 
Section 179(a) or 110(m) of the CAAs would be subject to sanctions for 
all federal-aid title 23 programs and projects (that are not exempt 
under this exemption criteria), regardless of the facility-type or 
route designation, within the applicable area or region. The CAA and 
EPA implementing regulations do not limit highway funding sanctions 
only to NHS routes or any other facility type funded under the ISTEA 
(or title 23). Despite the changes to the management system 
requirements made by the NHS Designation Act, information from the 
safety or bridge management systems may be used for the purpose of 
providing data to support safety exemptions under this final criteria 
notice.

I. Improved Streamlining

    One of the more critical comments received was in the area of 
improved streamlining for project delivery during the highway sanctions 
period by the DOT and EPA. During a highway sanctions scenario, the 
State departments of transportation will be responsible for reviewing 
and forwarding a listing of ``exempt'' highway projects to the FHWA 
prior to FHWA approval, and the subsequent authorization of title 23 
funds. The FHWA will review the State departments' of transportation 
lists of ``exempt'' programs and projects (in consultation with EPA) 
and make its determination of exemptions prior to issuing federal 
approvals or authorizations to proceed. The FHWA will provide the EPA 
with a 14-day review and comment period prior to federal approval and 
subsequent authorization of funds.

J. FHWA's Response to Other Comments Received

    The FHWA received a few additional comments. They ranged from 
questions related to the redistribution of title 23 highway funds to 
unsanctioned areas, general views on VMT growth and air quality trends, 
and other general discussions unrelated to the proposed or final 
exemption criteria. Since these comments could not be addressed by FHWA 
in the scope of the final exemption criteria and were not directly 
related to (nor influenced) the development of the exemption criteria, 
the FHWA did not believe it was pertinent to address them as part of 
this final exemption criteria.

IV. Safety Program/Project Requirements Under 23 U.S.C.

    Several programs have been established under title 23, U.S.C., 
expressly for the purpose of addressing safety objectives, either 
through programs targeted at driver behavior or safety projects 
intended to remediate structures, facilities, or prevent loss of human 
life. These programs include: the Highway Safety Improvement Program as 
defined under 23 CFR Part 924; the Highway Bridge Replacement and 
Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP) as defined under 23 CFR Part 650, 
Subpart D; and grant programs whose principal purpose is to improve 
safety and which do not include any capital improvements, including all 
programs established in Chapter I or IV or 23 U.S.C. that are 
administered by the NHTSA.
    Additionally, the Transportation Management and Monitoring Systems 
defined under 23 CFR Part 500 (58 FR 63475, December 1, 1993) defined 
requirements for the six management systems and the Traffic Monitoring 
System. As mentioned earlier, the NHS Designation Act of 1995 made the 
implementation of the ISTEA management systems optional for the States. 
The final notice allows States the flexibility to justify the 
exemptions of safety or bridge projects using data from their own 
safety or bridge management

[[Page 14369]]
systems. This information may be used to supplement existing data or, 
as it is developed, may improve existing data or information currently 
available.
    Programs or projects stemming from the following provisions could 
be exempt on the basis of an established safety-related project need 
meeting section 179(b) requirements. Title 23 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations sets forth the requirements for eligibility for federal 
funding for projects under the Highway Safety Improvement Program (23 
CFR Part 924) and the HBRRP (23 CFR Part 650 Subpart D) and programs 
administered by NHTSA (Chapters II and III of 23 CFR).
    These programs have been established with the purpose of addressing 
safety objectives and may be used to establish justification for the 
safety exemptions under the CAA if the section 179(b) requirements and 
those of this final notice are fully met.

A. Highway Safety Improvement Program (23 CFR Part 924)

    The Highway Safety Improvement Program requires each State to 
develop and implement a program which has as its goal reducing the 
number and severity of accidents and decreasing the potential of 
accidents on all highways. The program is to be continuous and its 
components consist of planning, implementation, and evaluation of 
safety programs and projects.
    The implementation of the highway safety improvement program is 
subject to procedures set forth in 23 CFR Part 630, Subpart A, Federal-
aid Programs Approval and Project Authorization, and the priorities 
developed in conjunction with 23 CFR part 924, section 924.9-Planning.
    The planning components of the program shall incorporate a process 
for collecting and maintaining a record of accident data; a process for 
analyzing available data to identify hazardous locations on the basis 
of accident experience or accident potential; a process for conducting 
engineering studies to develop highway safety improvements; and 
projects considering the potential reduction in the number and severity 
of accidents.

B. The Highway Bridge Replacement Program (HBRRP)

    This program is administered in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 144. 
Eligible work under this program includes the total replacement of a 
structurally deficient or functionally obsolete bridge, a nominal 
amount of approach work sufficient to connect the bridge to the roadway 
or major work required to restore the structural integrity of a bridge 
as well as work necessary to correct major safety defects. Bridge 
projects eligible for funding under the bridge replacement and 
rehabilitation program must be supported by bridge inventory data and 
evaluation of the bridge inventory.
    Projects are submitted by the State to the FHWA in accordance with 
23 CFR part 630, Subpart A, Federal-aid Programs Approval and 
Authorization. Priority consideration is given to those projects which 
will remove from service those highway bridges most in danger of 
failure.

C. Highway Safety Programs Administered by NHTSA

    NHTSA administers (independently or cooperatively with other 
Federal agencies) programs whose principal purpose is to improve 
highway safety and which do not include any capital improvements. Under 
these programs, the agency awards either grants, contracts, or 
cooperative agreements. These programs include, but are not limited to, 
programs authorized under chapter IV of title 23, U.S.C., such as:

--Section 402, Highway Safety Programs, under which the agency 
promulgates guidelines and awards grants to States having approved 
highway safety programs designed to reduce traffic accidents and 
deaths, injuries and property damage;
--Section 403, Highway Safety Research and Development, under which the 
agency engages in research on all phases of highway safety and traffic 
conditions and other related research and development activities which 
will promote highway safety;
--Section 410, Alcohol Impaired Driving Countermeasures, under which 
the agency makes grants to States which adopt and implement effective 
programs to reduce traffic safety problems resulting from persons 
driving under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance.

    NHTSA programs also include, but are not limited to, programs 
authorized under Chapter I of title 23, U.S.C. such as: Section 153, 
Use of Safety Belts and Motorcycle Helmets, under which the agency has 
made grants to States with effective safety belt and motorcycle helmet 
use laws and under which States may be subject to the transfer of 
certain highway construction funds to section 402 programs for not 
having safety belt laws in effect.
    The final highway sanction exemption criteria policy is as follows.

Memorandum

U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Date:
Reply to Attn of: HEP-40

    Subject: Policy for Exemption Criteria to be Used to Determine 
Which Projects Can Advance if the Environmental Protection Agency 
Imposes the Highway Funding Sanction Under section 179(a) or 110(m) of 
the Clean Air Act (CAA), as Amended in 1990.
    From: Rodney E. Slater, Federal Highway Administrator.
    U.S. Department of Transportation.

To: Regional Federal Highway Administrators; Federal Lands Highway 
Program Administrator

    This policy memorandum defines the exemption criteria that will be 
used to determine which projects can go forward and which grants can be 
awarded in the event EPA imposes highway sanctions under section 179(a) 
or section 110(m) of the CAA. This policy memorandum contains a 
description of the criteria for exemptions and clarification of the 
types of projects and programs that are exempt. Projects for which 
exemptions cannot be granted are also included in this policy 
memorandum.

General Description

    Highway sanctions, when applied, halt the approval of projects and 
the award of any grants funded under Title 23, United States Code, 
except as defined in section 179(b) and as clarified by this policy 
memorandum. This applies to the following major funding programs:

1. Surface Transportation Program (STP).
2. National Highway System.
3. Interstate Maintenance.
4. Bridges.
5. Interstate Construction.
6. Interstate Substitution.
7. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ).

    Projects funded under all other Title 23 programs and other 
authorizations are also subject to sanctions, including demonstration 
projects identified by Congress and specified in the ISTEA of 1991 
under sections 1103-1108 or in other laws, unless they meet the 
criteria set forth in this policy memorandum. Additionally, other Title 
23 projects to be funded under previously authorized programs (prior to 
passage of the ISTEA, such as the Federal-aid Urban, Federal-aid 
Secondary Programs, etc.) may also be subject to certain highway 
funding restrictions under highway sanctions.
    Projects funded under Title 49, U.S.C. chapter 53, the Federal 
Transit Act, as amended, are categorically exempt from

[[Page 14370]]
sanctions by law as are other transportation programs authorized by 
statutes other than Title 23.

Typical Nonexempt Projects

    The following types of projects generally do not meet the exemption 
criteria in section 179(b)(1) and would not be allowed to be federally 
funded or approved under Title 23 unless it is demonstrated that they 
meet one or more of the exemption criteria. These include projects that 
expand highway or road capacity, nonexempt project development 
activities, and any other project that does not explicitly meet the 
criteria in this policy memorandum. These may include activities for:
    1. The addition of general purpose through lanes to existing roads.
    2. New highway facilities on new locations.
    3. New interchanges on existing highways.
    4. Improvements to, or reconfiguration of existing interchanges.
    5. Additions of new access points to the existing road network.
    6. Increasing functional capacity of the facility.
    7. Relocating existing highway facilities.
    8. Repaving or resurfacing except for safety purposes, as defined 
by section 179(b).
    9. Project development activities, including NEPA documentation and 
preliminary engineering, right-of-way purchase, equipment purchase, and 
construction solely for non-exempt projects.
    10. Transportation enhancement activities associated with the 
rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, 
structures, or facilities not categorically exempted.

Project Exemptions

    Under section 179(b)(1) of the CAA, once EPA imposes highway 
sanctions, the FHWA may not approve or award any grants in the 
sanctioned area except those which generally meet the criteria within 
this memorandum. Congress specifically exempted projects which fall 
under three categories: (1) safety programs and projects (under section 
179(b)(1)(A)); (2) seven congressionally-authorized activities (under 
section 179(b)(1)(B)(i-vii); and, (3) air quality improvement projects 
that would not encourage SOV capacity (under section 179(b)(1)(B)(viii) 
of the CAA). This policy memorandum further interprets and clarifies 
these statutory exemption provisions.

1. Safety Programs and Projects

    Safety projects are those for which the principal purpose is an 
improvement in safety but the projects may also have other important 
benefits. These projects must resolve a demonstrated safety problem 
with the likely result being a significant reduction in or avoidance of 
accidents as determined by the FHWA. Such demonstration must be 
supported by accident or other data submitted by the State or 
appropriate local government.
    Four general types of categories of safety-based programs and 
projects potentially meet the exemption criteria: grant programs and 
related activities; Emergency Relief (ER) projects; statewide safety 
improvement programs; and specific projects outside of a statewide 
safety program. Each category calls for varying levels of 
justification.
    a. Programs administered by NHTSA qualify for blanket exemptions, 
on the basis that their principal purpose is to improve safety and do 
not include any capital improvements. Programs that fall within this 
category include but are not limited to: (1) Use Safety Belts and 
Motorcycle Helmets (23 U.S.C. 153); (2) Highway Safety Programs (23 
U.S.C. 402); (3) Highway Safety Research and Development (23 U.S.C. 
403); and (4) Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures (23 U.S.C. 410).
    b. ER projects funded by Title 23 to repair facilities damaged or 
destroyed by natural disasters, civil unrest, or terrorist acts are 
exempt without further justification, provided that such projects do 
not involve substantial functional, locational, or capacity changes.
    c. Statewide safety improvement programs include specific safety 
projects that can be justified on the basis of State or national level 
data, which will be additionally supported by data and analysis 
stemming from the State (or ISTEA) management system requirements once 
the systems are fully operational. Projects meeting this exemption 
category would come out of the Highway Safety Improvement Program (23 
CFR Part 924) and the Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation 
Program (23 CFR Part 650, Subpart D). The Highway Safety Improvement 
Program also includes the Hazard Elimination Program (23 U.S.C. 152).
    d. Specific projects for which justification is needed to show that 
the project is related to safety, unless the project is drawn out of a 
statewide safety program and would be likely to reduce accidents, would 
include capital projects such as:

--Elimination of, and safety features for, railroad-highway grade 
crossings.
--Changes in vertical or horizontal alignment.
--Increasing sight distance.
--Elimination of high hazard locations or roadside obstacles.
--Shoulder improvements, widening narrow pavements.
--Adding or upgrading guardrail, medians and barriers, crash cushions, 
fencing.
--Pavement resurfacing or rehabilitation to improve skid resistance.
--Replacement or rehabilitation of unsafe bridges.
--Safety roadside rest areas, truck size and weight inspection 
stations.
--Addition and upgrading of traffic control devices, (traffic signals, 
signs, and pavement markings).
--Lighting improvements.
--Truck climbing lanes.

    Justification for an exemption on the grounds of safety must be 
based on accident or other data such as the data derived from a State's 
safety and bridge management system, the Highway Safety Improvement 
Program, or the Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program. 
Such data need not be specific to the proposed project's location, but 
may be based on accident or other data from similar conditions, 
including national experience where such projects have been implemented 
to remove safety hazards. For example, rigid highway sign posts were 
identified in the past as a safety hazard causing unnecessary deaths 
and injuries. The identification of this hazard led to national policy 
requiring rigid posts to be replaced with breakaway poles.
    Projects exempted under the safety provision may not involve 
substantial functional (such as upgrading major arterial to freeways), 
locational, or capacity changes except when the safety problem could 
not otherwise be solved.

2. Congressionally Authorized Activities

    Seven project types are identified specifically in the CAA section 
179(b)(1) as exempt from highway sanctions. Essentially, these are 
projects that generally do not result in increased SOV capacity, or 
improve traffic flow (e.g., intersection improvements or turning lanes) 
in ways that reduce congestion and emissions:
    a. Capital programs for public transit. These include any capital 
investment for new construction, rehabilitation, replacement, or 
reconstruction of facilities and acquisition of vehicles and equipment.
    b. Construction or restriction of certain roads or lanes solely for 
the use of passenger buses or High Occupancy Vehicles (HOV). Exempt 
projects include construction of (or conversion of existing lanes to) 
new HOV lanes, if

[[Page 14371]]
those lanes are solely dedicated as 24-hour HOV facilities.
    c. Planning for requirements for employers to reduce employee work-
trip related vehicle emissions. This includes promotional and other 
activities associated with this type of program that are eligible under 
Title 23.
    d. Highway ramp metering, traffic signalization, and related 
programs that improve traffic flow and achieve a new emission 
reduction.
    e. Fringe and transportation corridor parking facilities serving 
multiple occupancy vehicle programs or transit operations (this 
includes the construction of new facilities and the maintenance of 
existing facilities).
    f. Programs to limit or restrict vehicle use in downtown areas or 
other areas of emission concentration, particularly during periods of 
peak use, through road use charges, tolls, parking surcharges, or other 
pricing mechanisms, vehicle restricted zones or periods, or vehicle 
registration programs. Exempt projects include all activities of these 
types that are eligible under existing funding programs.
    g. Programs for breakdown and accident scene management, non-
recurring congestion, and vehicle information systems, to reduce 
congestion and emissions.
    The FHWA will consult with EPA on any project claimed to reduce 
emissions (e.g., with projects falling under paragraphs c, d, and g, 
above). However, the final authority to determine whether a project 
meets the criteria in this memorandum and is exempt from highway 
sanctions rests with the FHWA.

3. Air Quality Improvement Programs That Do Not Encourage Single 
Occupant Vehicle (SOV) Capacity

    Transportation programs not otherwise exempt that improve air 
quality and which would not encourage SOV capacity (as determined by 
EPA in consultation with DOT) are also exempt from highway sanctions. 
For example, projects listed in section 108(f) of the CAA and projects 
funded under 23 U.S.C. 149, the CMAQ program, are projects which EPA 
and DOT may, after individual review of each project, find to be exempt 
from highway sanctions. For these projects to advance while highway 
sanctions are in place, the State must submit to DOT an emissions 
reduction analysis similar to that required under the CMAQ program. 
Upon receipt, DOT will forward it to EPA. The EPA will complete its 
review and make its finding regarding air quality and SOV capacity 
within 14 days of receipt of such information.
    The EPA and DOT have agreed that the following projects will be 
categorically exempt from highway sanctions, and will not require 
additional EPA review or an individual finding by EPA:
    a. The TCMs contained in an EPA-approved State Implementation Plan 
or Federal Implementation Plan which have emission reduction credit and 
will not encourage SOV capacity.
    b. Inspection and maintenance facilities and activities eligible 
for CMAQ funding.
    c. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities and programs.
    d. Carpool/Vanpool programs.
    e. Conversion of existing lanes for HOV use during peak hour 
periods, including capital costs necessary to restrict existing lanes 
(barriers, striping, signage, etc.).
    In considering exempt projects, States should seek to ensure 
adequate access to downtown and other commercial and residential areas, 
and should strive to avoid increasing or relocating emissions and 
congestion.

4. Projects That Have a ``De Minimis'' Air Quality Impact and Provide 
Other Environmental or Aesthetic Benefits

    The following projects are likely to have ``de minimis'' 
environmental or environmentally beneficial impacts, provide other 
aesthetic benefits, do not promote SOV capacity, and are, therefore 
considered exempt from highway sanctions:
    a. Wetland Mitigation.
    b. Planting Trees, Shrubs, Wildflowers.
    c. Landscaping.
    d. Purchase of Scenic Easements.
    e. Billboard and Other Sign Removal.
    f. Historic Preservation.
    g. Transportation Enhancement Activities (except rehabilitation and 
operation of historic transportation buildings, structures, or 
facilities).
    h. Noise Abatement.

Planning and Research Activities

    Planning and research activities for transportation and/or air 
quality purposes are exempt from highway sanctions (except as noted in 
the Project Development Activities section). Such planning and research 
is critical for the development of projects that improve safety and 
address an area's transportation/air quality needs. Planning and 
research activities may include development of an Environmental Impact 
Study or Environmental Assessment (under NEPA) in conjunction with a 
major investment study. Major investment studies are planning studies 
which normally take a multimodal approach in considering transportation 
alternatives, and are therefore exempt from sanctions under this 
criteria.
    Research activities also include those research, development, 
testing, and planning projects involving the National Intelligent 
Transportation Systems (ITS) Program funded by part B of Title 6 of the 
1991 ISTEA. The goal of the ITS Program is to use advanced technology 
to improve travel and roadway safety without expanding existing 
infrastructure. The ITS activities are generally done under seven broad 
categories: (1) Transportation management and traveller information; 
(2) travel demand management; (3) public transportation operations; (4) 
electronic payment; (5) commercial vehicle operations; (6) emergency 
management; and (7) advanced vehicle control and safety systems. 
Therefore, planning and research activities associated with the ITS 
Program are also exempt from sanctions under this criteria.

Project Development Activities

    Development and completion of studies to meet requirements under 
NEPA are exempt from highway sanctions as long as consideration of 
projects that would be exempt under this policy memorandum, such as 
transit or other Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures, are 
actively pursued as reasonable independent alternatives. Once all 
alternatives that could be considered exempt from highway sanctions 
under this policy memorandum are eliminated, project development 
activities for NEPA or other purposes are no longer exempt and can no 
longer be approved or funded under Title 23. For example, if prior to 
completion of NEPA documentation, all TDM measures are eliminated from 
consideration and the sole remaining question is the determination of 
an alignment for a highway capacity-expanding project (which may 
include TDM), subsequent project development activities are not exempt 
from highway sanctions.
    The FHWA may not approve preliminary engineering for final design 
of a project, nor can approval be granted for a project's plans, 
specifications, and estimates after initiation of highway sanctions for 
projects that are not exempt under this policy memorandum. Neither 
right-of-way nor any necessary equipment may be purchased or leased 
with Federal funds for nonexempt projects while an area is under 
sanction. Federally-funded construction may not in any way begin on a 
project that does

[[Page 14372]]
not meet the exemption criteria described in this policy memorandum 
while an area is under sanction.
    Highway sanctions apply to those projects whose funds have not yet 
been obligated by FHWA by the date the highway sanction applies. Those 
projects that have already received approval to proceed and had 
obligated funds before EPA imposes the prohibition may proceed even 
while the area is under sanction, if no other FHWA action is required 
to proceed. In the case of a phased project, only those phases that 
have been approved and had obligated funds prior to the date of 
sanction application may proceed. For example, if preliminary 
engineering for a project was approved and funds were obligated prior 
to application of sanctions but no approval was secured for later 
project phases (such as right-of-way acquisition, construction, etc.), 
preliminary engineering could proceed while the highway sanction 
applies, but no subsequent phases of the project could proceed with 
FHWA funds unless the total project meets the exemption criteria in 
this policy memorandum. These restrictions pertain only to project 
development activities that are to be approved or funded by FHWA under 
title 23. Activities funded under title 49, U.S.C., or through State or 
other funds, may proceed even after highway sanctions have been imposed 
unless: (1) Approval or action by FHWA under title 23 is required; and 
(2) they do not meet the exemption criteria of this policy memorandum.

Other Environmental Requirements

    Exemption of a transportation project from the section 179(b)(1) 
highway sanctions does not waive any applicable requirements under NEPA 
(e.g., environmental documents), section 176(c) of the CAA (conformity 
requirement), or other Federal law.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7509(b); 23 U.S.C. 315; and 49 CFR 1.48.

    Issued on: March 25, 1996.
Rodney E. Slater,
Federal Highway Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-7821 Filed 3-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-M